'Geological  st*^^^ 


B34q 

15 


on  tlje  Palg  Scriptiius  of  ilit  #Itr  mxH 


UNDER    THE    EDITORSHIP    OF 


The  Rev.  CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS,  D.D, 

Sometime  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopedia  and  Symbolics 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York 


The  Rev.  SAMUEL  ROLLES  DRIVER,  D.D. 

Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford 

The  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  M.A.,  D.D. 

L»te  Master  of  University  College,  Durhmm 


J 


THE   BOOKS   OF   EZRA-NEHEMIAH 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


CRITICAL  AND   EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE  BOOKS  OF 
EZRA  AND  WeHEMIAH 


BY 

V 


LORING   W.    BATTEN,   Ph.D.,   S.T.D. 

PSOFESSOK    OF   THE   LITERATURE    AND    INTERPRETATION    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT, 
GENERAL  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,   NEW  YORK 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 


Copyright,  1913,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

Published  September,  1913 


TO 

MY  CHIEF   AND   MY   FRIEND 

WILFORD    LASH    ROBBINS 

DEAN   OF   THE 
GENERAL  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PREFACE. 

ONE  of  the  editors  of  the  International  Critical  Commen- 
tary, the  Rev.  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt., 
died  while  this  volume  was  going  through  the  press.  I 
was  fortunate  in  having  the  benefit  of  his  editorial  supervision 
of  the  manuscript  and  of  a  part  of  the  proof.  So  the  work  was 
well  under  way  when  the  message  came  that  he  was  too  ill  to 
read  proof  any  longer  and  that  I  must  assume  full  responsi- 
bility. I  have  done  my  best  that  his  illness  should  result  in  no 
loss  to  this  work. 

In  the  death  of  Dr.  Briggs,  American  Biblical  scholarship  has 
lost  one  of  its  ablest  and  most  widely  known  representatives. 
He  was  called  upon  to  suffer  much  for  his  convictions,  and  he 
did  suffer  bravely.  Nor  did  he  suffer  in  vain.  He  had  the  sat- 
isfaction of  justification  in  the  end;  for  the  views  which  aroused 
so  much  opposition  have  met  with  general  acceptance.  Dr. 
Briggs  was  really  conservative;  he  formed  his  opinions  slowly 
and  deliberately;  but  once  they  were  formed,  he  would  yield 
them  only  to  new  evidence.  I  am  glad  to  have  this  opportunity 
to  express  my  appreciation  of  the  character  and  attainments  of 
Dr.  Briggs  and  the  great  privilege  I  have  enjoyed  in  frequent 
friendly  association  with  him. 

The  preparation  of  this  volume  has  occupied  my  available 
time  for  several  years.  I  should  have  despaired  of  finishing 
what  proved  to  be  a  far  bigger  task  than  I  ever  anticipated 
save  for  my  return,  two  years  ago,  to  the  professorial  office  so 
that  my  summers  were  really  free  for  work.  The  task  proved 
unexpectedly  big,  for  I  discovered  early  in  my  studies  that 
Ezra-Nehemiah  bristled  with  hard  problems  which  had  not 
really  been  solved.  Many  have  ignored  them  altogether;  oth- 
ers have  reached  conclusions  without  adequately  recognising 


VIU  PREFACE 

and  weighing  all  the  available  evidence.  There  was,  therefore, 
a  great  deal  of  pioneer  work  to  be  done,  and  I  have  laboured 
perseveringly  in  the  hope  of  making  some  contribution  to  our 
scanty  knowledge  of  the  important  Persian  period  of  Jewish 
history  and  to  our  understanding  of  Biblical  books  which  have 
suffered  from  neglect. 

Nevertheless,  I  confess  that  I  am  heavily  indebted  to  scholars 
who  have  laboured  in  this  field,  even  to  some  from  whose  conclu- 
sions I  dissent.  The  references  show  at  least  a  Ust  of  liabilities. 
But  there  is  another  debt,  and  a  larger  one,  which  cannot  be 
exhibited  in  references,  and  which  I  desire  to  put  on  record  here, 
and  that  is  the  obligation  to  the  three  teachers  under  whom  it 
was  my  privilege  to  study  years  ago,  and  who  awakened  in  me 
an  absorbing  interest  in  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament.  In 
the  order  of  my  acquaintance  with  them,  the  three  are:  Pro- 
fessor David  G.  Lyon,  of  Harvard  University;  the  Rev.  Dr. 
John  P.  Peters,  formerly  professor  in  the  Philadelphia  Divinity 
School;  and  the  late  Dr.  William  R.  Harper,  president  of  the 
University  of  Chicago. 

LORING  W.  BATTEN. 

The  General  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York,  June  28,  1913. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

PREFACE vii 

ABBREVIATIONS xi 

INTRODUCTION 

§    I.    The  Original  Form  of  the  Books i 

§    2.    The  Date 2 

§    3.    The  Contents  of  the  Books 3 

§    4.    The  Chronological  Order 4 

§    5.    The  Two  Editions  of  Ezra-Nehemiah      ....  6 

§     6.     I  ESDRAS 6 

§    7.    The  Semitic  Text 13 

§    8.    The  Sources 14 

§    9.    The  Samaritan  Opposition 24 

§  10.    The  Date  of  Ezra's  Mission 28 

§  II.    The  History  of  the  Persian  Period 30 

§  12.    Chapter  and  Verse  Divisions 52 

§  13.    Literature 52 

COMMENTARY  ON 

Ezra  i 55 

Ezra  2'-" 71 

Ezra  2"'-4' 103 

EzRA4"''-6" 128 

Ezra  6"-^'' 151 

Ezra  4*'* 15s 

Ezra  4'-2<» 160 

Nehemiah  I,  2 182 

Nehemiah  3»-'«          206 

Nehemiah  3"-4>' 224 

Nehemiah  5        237 

Nehemiah  6         249 

Nehemiah  7>-» 262 

Nehemiah  ii 266 

iz 


X  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Nehemiah  i2'-'«        37s 

Nehemiah  i2"-« 279 

Nehemiah  12"-" 283 

Nehemiah  13 286 

Ezra  7-10 303 

Nehemiah  8-10 352 

INDEX 381 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


I.    TEXTS  AND  VERSIONS. 


ARV.      =  American  Revised  Ver- 
sion. 
AV.  =  Authorised  Version. 

BD.         =  Baer  and  Delitzsch,  He- 
brew text. 

Chr.        =  The  Chronicler,  author 
of  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. 


E. 

Esd. 


Esd_B,AotL 


=  Memoirs  of  Ezra. 
=  The  Greek  text  known 
as  I  Esdras. 
The  Vatican,  Alexan- 
drian, or  Lucian  text 
of  the  same.  The  let- 
ters standing  alone  re- 
fer to  the  same  texts. 

3  Esd.     =  The  Latin  text  of  i  Es- 
dras. 

EV^        =  English  Versions. 

(K  =  Greek    Septuagint  Ver- 

sion. In  Ezr.-Ne.  this 
always  means  2  Esdras 
as  distinguished  from 
I  Esdras. 

C5*  =  The  Alexandrine  text. 

(gB  =  Vatican  text  of  Swete. 

(gx  =  The  Sinaitic  text. 


(§'-  =  The  Lucian  text;  ed.  La- 

garde. 

^  =  Hebrew  consonantal  text. 

3  =  Latin  Version  of  Jerome. 

J  =  Judaic    sources    of    the 

Hexateuch. 

Kt.  =  Knhib,  the  Hebrew  text 

as  written. 


MT. 

=  The  Massoretic  pointed 

text. 

N. 

=  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah. 

NT. 

=  The  New  Testament. 

OT. 

=  The  Old  Testament. 

P 

=  The  priestly  sources  of 

the  Hexateuch. 

Qr. 

=  Q^re.  the  Hebrew  text  as 

read. 

R. 

=  The  Redactor,  or  editor. 

RV. 

=  The  Revised  Version. 

RV.™ 

=  The  margin  of  the  Re- 

vised Version. 

B  =  The  Vulgate  Version. 

Vrss.        =  Versions,  usually  an- 
cient. 


xu 


ABBREVIATIONS 


II.    BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS. 

Am. 

=  Amos. 

Je. 

=  Jeremiah. 

Apocr. 

=  Apocrypha,   Apocry- 

Jn. 

=  John. 

phal. 

Jo. 

=  Joel. 

Jos. 

=  Joshua. 

I,  2  Ch. 

=  I,  2  Chronicles. 

Ju. 

=  Judges. 

Dn. 

=  Daniel. 

I,  2K. 

=  1,  2  Kings. 

Dt. 

=  Deuteronomy. 

Lv. 

=  Leviticus. 

Est. 

=  Esther. 

I,  2  Mac 

.  =  I,  2  Maccabees. 

Ex. 

=  Exodus. 

Mai. 

=  Malachi. 

Ez. 

=  Ezekiel. 

Ezr. 

=  Ezra. 

Na. 

=  Nahum. 

Ne. 

=  Nehemiah. 

Gn. 

=  Genesis. 

Nu. 

=  Numbers. 

Ps. 

=  Psalms. 

Hg. 

=  Haggai. 

I,  2S. 

=  1,2  Samuel. 

Is. 

=  early  parts  of  Isaiah. 

Is.' 

=  exilic  parts  of  Isaiah. 

Zc. 

=  Zechariah. 

Is.» 

=  postexilic  parts  of  Isaiah. 

Zp. 

=  Zephaniah. 

III.    AUTHORS  AND  WRITINGS. 

BDB. 

=  Hebrew  and  English 

Dr.'""- 

=  Introduction  to  Litera- 

Lexicon of  the  OT., 

ture  of  OT. 

edited  by  F.  Brown, 

Du. 

=  B.  Duhm. 

S.  R.  Driver,   C.  A. 

Briggs. 

EB. 

=  Encyclopaedia  Biblica. 

Berth. 

=  Bertholet,   Esra  u.  Ne- 

ES. 

=  Ezra  Studies  (Torrey). 

hemia. 

Ew. 

=  H.  Ewald. 

B.-Rys. 

=  Bertheau-Ryssel,  Esra, 

Neh.  u.  Esther. 

Ges.B 

=  Gesenius,  Heb.  Lex.  ed. 

Br.P^ 

=  Psalms,  ICC. 

Buhl. 

Bud. 

=  K.  Budde. 

Ges.5 

=  his  Heb.  Gram.  ed. 
Kautzsch. 

Che. 

=  T.  K.  Cheyne. 

Curt. 
DB. 

=  Curtis,  Chron.  ICC. 
=  Hastings'  Dictionary  of 

ICC. 

=  International  Critical 
Commentary. 

the  Bible. 

JBL. 

=  Journal  of  Biblical  Lit- 

De. 

=  Friederic  Delitzsch. 

erature. 

ABBREVIATIONS 

XllI 

Jer. 

=  Jerome. 

Seis. 

=  Seisenberger,  Esd.  Neh. 

Jos. 

=  Fl.  Josephus. 

u.  Est. 

Sieg. 

=  Siegfried,  Esr.,  Neh.  u. 

Kost. 

=  Kosters,  Wiederher- 

Est. 

slellung. 

Sm. 

=  R.  Smend. 

Kue. 

=  A.  Kuenen. 

Sta. 

=  B.  Stade,  Bib.  Theol.  des 
A.T. 

Lag. 

=  P.  de  Lagarde. 

Str. 

=  Strack,   Gram,  d    Bibl.- 

Mar. 

=  Marti,  Bib-Aram.  Gram. 

Aram. 

Mey. 

=  Meyer,  Entstehung. 

We. 

=  J.  Wellhausen. 

PSBA. 

=  Proc.  Soc.  Bib.  Arch. 

ZAW. 

=  Zeitschrift  f.  alttcst. 

Ryle 

=  Ezr.-Neh.  Camb.  Bible. 

Wissenschaft. 

RS. 

=  W.  Robertson  Smith. 

ZMG. 

=  Z.  d.  detitsck.  Morgen- 
land.  Gesellschaft. 

Sachau 

=  Aram.  Pap.  u.  Ost.  atis 

ZPV. 

=  Z.   d.  deutsch.  Pal.  Ve- 

Elephantine. 

reins. 

IV.     GENERAL,  ESPECIALLY   GRAMMATICAL. 


abr. 

=  abbreviation. 

c. 

=  chapter,  chapters. 

ace. 

=  accusative. 

chron. 

=  chronological. 

ace.  cog 

=  cognate  ace. 

cod.,  codd.  =  codex,  codices. 

ace.  to 

=  according  to. 

cf. 

=  confer,  compare. 

act. 

=  active. 

cog. 

=  cognate. 

adj. 

=  adjective. 

comm. 

=  commentary,    commen 

adv. 

=  adverb. 

taries. 

a.X. 

=  &%x^  XsY6ti,£vov,  word  or 

conj. 

=  conjunction. 

phrase  used  once. 

consec. 

=  consecutive. 

app. 

=  apposition. 

cstr. 

=  construct. 

Ar. 

=  Arabic. 

Aram. 

=  Aramaic. 

del. 

=  dele,  strike  out. 

art. 

=  article. 

Deut. 

=  Deuteronomic. 

As. 

=  Assyrian. 

dittog. 

=  dittography. 

dub. 

=  dubious,  doubtful. 

Bab. 

=  Babylon,  Babylonian. 

dup. 

=  duplicate. 

Benj. 

=  Benjamin,  Benjamite. 

B.  Aram 

.  =  Biblical  Aramaic. 

elsw. 

=  elsewhere. 

emph. 

=  emphasis,  emphatic. 

c. 

=  circa,  about;    also  cum, 

esp. 

=  especially. 

with. 

equiv. 

=  equivalent. 

XIV 


ABBREVIATIONS 


el  al. 

—  and  others,  esp.  associ- 

obj. 

=  object. 

ates. 

op.  cit. 

=  work  quoted. 

et  pass. 

=  el  passim,  and  here  and 

opp. 

=  opposite,  as  opposed  to 

there. 

or  contrasted  with. 

exc. 

=  except. 

exil. 

=  exilic. 

P- 

=  person. 

f. 

fig. 
fpl. 

=  feminine. 

=  figurative. 

=  feminine  plural. 

pap. 

parall. 

part. 

=  papyrus. 
=  parallel  with. 
=  particle. 

freq. 

=  frequentative. 

pass. 
Pers. 

=  passive. 

=  Persia,  Persian. 

fs. 

=  feminine  singular. 

pf. 

=  perfect. 

gent. 

=  gentilic. 

Pi. 

=  Piel  of  verb. 

gl. 

=  gloss,  glossator. 

pi. 

=  plural. 

Gk. 

=  Greek. 

postex. 

=  postexilic. 

pr. 

=  priest,  priests. 

Heb. 

=  Hebrew. 

pred. 

=  predicate. 

Hiph. 

=  Hiphil  of  verb. 

pre-ex. 

=  pre-exilic. 

Hithp. 

=  Hithpael  of  verb. 

prep. 

=  preposition. 

prob. 

=  probable,  probably. 

ib. 

=  ibidem,  in   the    same 

pron. 

=  pronoun. 

place. 

ptc. 

=  participle. 

i.  e. 

=  id  est,  that  is. 

Pu. 

=  Pual  of  verb. 

impf. 

=  imperfect. 

imv. 

=  imperative. 

qu. 

=  question. 

inf. 

=  infinitive. 

q.  V. 

=  quod  vide. 

intr. 

=  introduction. 

rd. 

=  read. 

Jerus. 

=  Jerusalem. 

rel. 

=  relative. 

juss. 

=  jussive. 

1. 

=  line. 

Sam. 

=  Samaria,  Samaritans. 

Lev. 

=  Levite,  Levites. 

sf. 

=  suifix,  sufl&xes. 

lit. 

=  literal,  literally. 

sg. 

=  singular. 

sq. 

=  followed  by. 

m. 

=  masculine. 

St. 

=  status,  state,  stative. 

mng. 

=  meaning. 

subj. 

=  subject. 

mpl. 

=  masculine  plural. 

subst. 

=  substantive. 

ms. 

=  masculine  singular. 

S.  V. 

=  sub  voce. 

syl. 

=  syllable. 

n. 

=  noun. 

syn. 

=  synonymous. 

n.  p. 

=  proper  name. 

n.  pr.  loc.  =  proper  noun  of  place. 

t. 

=  times  (following  a  num- 

Neth. 

=  Nethinim. 

ber). 

Niph. 

=  Niphal  of  verb. 

tr. 

=  transfer. 

ABBREVIATIONS 


XV 


trans.      =  transitive, 
txt.  err.  -=  textual  error. 

v.,  w,     =  verse,  verses. 


p.  =  vide,  see. 

vb.  =  verb. 

V.  i.  =  vide  infra,  see  below. 

V.  s.  =  vide  supra,  see  above. 


V.    OTHER  SIGNS. 


prefixed  indicates  all  passages 

cited, 
parallel,    of    words    or    clauses 

chiefly  synonymous, 
equivalent,  equals. 


+  plus  denotes  that  other  passages 
might  be  cited. 

'  =  sign  of  abbreviation  in  He- 
brew words. 


VI.    NAMES  RECURRING  FREQUENTLY. 


Art.         =  Artaxerxes    I  Longi- 

Neh. 

=  Nehemiah. 

manus. 

Sanb. 

=  Sanballat. 

Art.  II.    =  Artaxerxes  II  Mnemon. 

Shes. 

=  Sheshbazzar. 

Cy.          =  Cyrus. 

To. 

=  Tobiah. 

Dar.        ==  Darius  I. 

Zer. 

=  Zerubbabel. 

Jes.         =  Jeshua  or  Joshua. 

VII.     RE 

MARKS. 

Biblical  passages  are  cited  according  to  the  verses  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

Numerals  raised  above  the  line  (i)  after  numerals  designating  chapters 
indicate  verses  (Gn.  6»);  (2)  after  proper  names  refer  to  sections  of  gram- 
mars or  pages  of  books  (Ges.^"). 


INTRODUCTION. 

§  I.  THE  ORIGINAL  FORM  OF  THE  BOOKS. 

The  books  of  Ezr.  and  Ne.  were  originally  one,  and  ought 
really  to  be  so  combined  now.  The  evidence  of  this  is  over- 
whelming. Two  points  sufl&ce  for  a  demonstration:  (i)  The 
story  of  Ezr.  is  partly  in  one  book,  Ezr.  7-10,  and  partly  in 
the  other,  Ne.  7^-8^^.*  In  i  Esd.  these  two  parts  are  united 
in  a  single  book.  (2)  At  the  end  of  each  book  of  the  OT.  there 
are  certain  Massoretic  notes,  giving  the  number  of  verses,  the 
middle  point  in  the  volume  or  roll,  etc.  There  are  no  such 
notes  at  the  end  of  Ezr.,  and  those  at  the  end  of  Ne.  cover  both 
books,  showing  that  the  two  constituted  a  single  work  when 
those  notes  were  made.f 

It  is  also  generally  agreed  that  Ezr.-Ne.  originally  was  a 
part  of  the  book  of  Ch.,  so  that  the  whole  work  was  a  com- 
prehensive history  of  the  Jews  from  Adam  down  to  the  end  of 
the  Persian  period. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  Heb.  Bible  our  books  precede  Ch.,  though 
the  right  order  is  found  in  <S.  The  order  in  the  Heb.  canon  is  naturally 
illogical,  and  is  prob.  due  to  the  fact  that  Ezr.-Ne.  was  accepted 
as  canonical  before  Ch.  The  fact  is  that  Ch.  was  under  a  great 
deal  of  suspicion.  It  was  a  book  parall.  the  earlier  histories  long  es- 
tablished as  authorities,  and  differing  from  them  so  much  that  the 
presence  of  the  new  work  created  diflficulties.  Ezr.-Ne.,  on  the  other 
hand,  contained  the  only  account  of  the  important  Pers.  period.  A 
part  of  the  large  work  of  Ch.  was,  therefore,  severed  from  the  rest,  and 
naturally  just  that  part  dealing  with  the  otherwise  unknown  period, 
and  of  which  there  was  no  dup.,  and  this  part  was  accepted.  Later  the 
rest  of  the  work  found  its  place  at  the  very  end  of  the  canon. 

The  order  in  C5  really  does  not  contravene  this  conclusion,  for  the 
Gk.  translators  made  a  new  arrangement  of  the  canon  on  a  literary  basis, 

•The  grounds  for  this  limitation  are  given  below  in  the  treatment  of  the  history  under 
the  reign  of  Art.  II. 
t  See  further  my  art.  "  Ezr.-Ne.,"  in  DB.  i,«'»b. 

I 


2  ;  INTRODUCTION 

putting  all  the  historical  books  together.  When  the  transposition  was 
made  on  this  basis,  Ch.  was  put  before  Ezr.-Ne.  from  chron.  consid- 
erations. 

When  the  disjuncture  was  made,  there  appears  to  have  been  an  acci- 
dent, for  the  severed  parts  overlap,  Ezr.  i'-'»  being  identical  with  2 
Ch.  36"  '•.  The  latter  ends  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence  "and  let  him  go 
up,"  and  in  the  middle  of  Cy.'s  decree.  The  simplest  explanation  of 
the  strange  fact  is  that  a  copyist  who  was  working  on  the  book  of  Ch. 
had  as  his  exemplar  one  of  the  older  editions  containing  the  whole  orig- 
inal Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.  He  got  beyond  the  point  of  division  before  he 
noted  his  mistake,  and  this  slip  has  been  perpetuated  down  to  the 
present  day.     Howorth  explains  differently  (PSBA.  1901,^). 

It  is  indisputable  that  Ch.  and  Ezr.-Ne.  come  from  the  same  hand. 
There  is  no  book  in  the  OT.  which  has  more  marked  peculiarities  than 
Ch.  These  cover  both  literary  features,  favourite  words  and  expres- 
sions, peculiar  style,  etc.  (for  a  list  of  which,  see  Curt.^,  and  also 
historical  features,  for  the  Chr.  had  his  own  way  of  looking  at  the 
history,  and  his  theory  colours  his  work  so  markedly  that  it  is  often 
quite  valueless  to  the  student  of  history.  There  is  scarcely  one  of  these 
peculiarities  that  is  not  found  also  in  Ezr.-Ne.  Evidence  of  the  original 
unity  is  furnished  from  Esd.,  which  contains  two  whole  c.  of  Ch. 
(2  Ch.  35,  36)  and  then  goes  on  directly  to  Ezra,  without  the  duplica- 
tion found  in  Heb.     Further  evidence  is  given  by  Curt.  Inlr,  §  *. 

§  2.     THE    DATE. 

It  is  difficult  to  deal  satisfactorily  with  this  problem,  for  Ezr.- 
Ne.  is  a  composite  work  and  contains  sources  from  different 
periods.  If  the  decree  of  Cyrus  in  Ezr.  i  is  original,  this  is  the 
earliest  portion  and  belongs  to  538  b.c.  Ezr.  4''-'^*^  is  made  up 
chiefly  of  two  letters  which  belong  to  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes, 
and  before  his  20th  year,  therefore  is  dated  somewhere  in  the 
period  464-444  B.C.  But  the  letters  are  imbedded  in  a  nar- 
rative, and  it  is  impossible  to  say  when  the  compilation  of  the 
letters  was  made,  except  that  it  was  before  the  Chronicler's  time. 
The  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah  were  apparently  written  soon  after 
his  second  administration,  certainly  not  later  than  the  end  of 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  424  B.C.  As  for  the  date  of  the  whole 
work,  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.,  it  is  unnecessary  to  dupHcate  the  excellent 
work  of  Curtis  (v.  Intr.  §3).  Certainly  our  books  go  down  to  the 
Greek  age,  and  it  is  quite  impossible  to  place  the  work  earlier 


THE   CONTENTS  ,  3 

than  300  B.C.  We  can  with  a  good  deal  of  confidence  name 
the  third  century  B.C.  as  the  time  of  the  Chronicler,  but  cannot 
be  more  exact. 

§  3.  THE  CONTENTS  OF  THE  BOOKS. 

Ezra  I.  The  return  of  exiles  under  Sheshbazzar  bringing  the 
sacred  vessels  of  the  temple  and  having  permission  to  rebuild 
the  temple. 

2^-®'.  A  list  of  residents  of  the  province  of  Judah. 

27o_^3_  The  Hebrew  story  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  un- 
der the  leadership  of  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua. 

4^-^  A  fragment,  descriptive  of  the  opposition  of  the  Gentile 
neighbours  of  the  Jews. 

^7 -24 a  (Aram.).  The  complaint  to  Artaxerxes  and  his  order 
to  stop  the  building  operations. 

^24b_5i8  (Aram.).  The  Aramaic  version  of  the  history  of  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple;  parallel  to  2^-4^ 

519-22^  The  keeping  of  the  Passover. 

7-10.  The  principal  part  of  Ezra's  history,  containing  the 
letter  of  Artaxerxes  7^2-26  (Aram.),  a  description  of  the  gather- 
ing of  his  caravan,  the  discovery  of  the  marriages  with  for- 
eigners, and  the  dissolution  of  these  marriages. 

Nehemiah  i,  2.  Nehemiah  learns  of  the  sad  plight  of  Jeru- 
salem, obtains  leave  of  absence  from  Artaxerxes,  goes  up  to 
Jerusalem  with  a  caravan,  makes  an  inspection  of  the  walls, 
and  appeals  successfully  to  the  people  to  start  the  restoration 
of  the  walls. 

3!-^^  A  list  of  the  forces  engaged  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls 
and  the  portion  restored  by  each  body. 

333-417  (EV^.  41-23).  The  efforts  of  Sanballat,  Tobiah,  and 
others  to  prevent  the  restoration  of  the  walls. 

5.  The  distress  of  the  impoverished  Jews  and  Nehemiah's 
measures  for  their  relief. 

6^7^.  Further  efforts  of  Sanballat  and  his  associates  to  wreck 
Nehemiah's  projects;  the  completion  of  the  walls,  and  the  care 
for  the  protection  of  the  city. 


4  INTRODUCTION 

7«-".  A  duplicate  of  Ezr.  2^-^^. 

8^-^^  Resumption  of  the  history  of  Ezra,  describing  the  prom- 
ulgation of  the  law. 

8i3-i8_  T}ie  observance  of  the  Feast  of  Booths. 

9.  The  prayer  of  the  Levites. 

lo^-^^.  A  list  of  names  on  a  sealed  record. 

JQ29-40  Measures  taken  to  maintain  a  pure  race  and  to  sup- 
port the  worship  of  the  temple. 

II.  The  drafting  of  a  population  for  Jerusalem,  a  list  of  those 
who  dwelt  in  the  holy  city,  and  a  record  of  the  towns  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin.     A  sequel  to  7^. 

12^-26.  Lists  of  priests  and  Levites  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
Persian  period. 

i2"-«.  The  dedication  of  the  walls. 

J  244-47^  Provision  for  the  support  of  the  temple  officers. 

13.  The  reforms  instituted  in  Nehemiah's  second  administra- 
tion. 

§   4.      THE    CHRONOLOGICAL    ORDER. 

The  material  has  come  down  to  us  in  an  order  that  is  often 
very  puzzling.  As  the  result  of  successive  editings,  the  ma- 
terial is  very  badly  arranged.  For  the  most  part,  however,  it 
is  possible  to  restore  the  sections  to  a  proper  chronological 
sequence. 

With  a  single  exception  Ezr.  1-4"*  is  in  its  true  order.  C.  i  belongs 
to  the  time  of  Cy.;  2"'-4'  to  the  reign  of  Dar.;  4^-^  to  Xerxes,  and  4'-2<» 
to  Art.;  2'-"  is  one  of  the  late  passages  in  the  books,  at  least  as  late  as 
Ezr.  To  the  reign  of  Art.  belongs  also  all  of  the  Ne.  narrative,  viz., 
Ne.  1-7',  exc.  c.  s'-^'',  which  is  late,  11  12"-"  and  13.  There  is  left  in 
the  book  of  Ezr.  three  sections,  42<b-6u  6"-"  and  7-10.  4"''-6i8  be- 
longs to  the  time  of  Dar.  and  should  directly  follow  2"'-4',  the  Heb. 
version  of  the  same  story,  the  place  it  practically  has  in  Esd.,  where 
it  follows  4^  It  is  a  story  apparently  late  in  its  origin  and  not  of  very 
great  value.  Torrey  holds  that  4 '-6"  was  incorporated  bodily  by  the 
Chr.  (ES."0,  a^nd  that  the  temple  was  chiefly  in  mind  in  the  complaint 
of  the  Sam.  But  his  reasoning  is  not  convincing  {v.  4'*).  The  two 
passages  4'-=<»  and  4=<i'-6'«  really  have  little  in  common.  The  latter 
passage  was  removed  from  its  proper  position  because  the  former  was 
wrongly  interpreted.     It  was  a  comparatively  late  addition,  for  its  in- 


THE   CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  5 

sertion  worked  havoc  with  some  of  the  earlier  material.  An  editor  had 
the  Heb.  story  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  {2'"'-4^),  followed  by 
the  correspondence  with  Art.  about  the  rebuilding  of  the  city;  the 
Aram.  stor>-  differed  somewhat  from  the  Heb.;  the  editor  incorporated 
this  version  and  made  it  the  basis  of  his  history.  He  then  proceeded 
to  modify  the  Heb.  story  to  make  it  an  unsuccessful  attempt  at  rebuild- 
ing the  temple,  and  found  in  4'-2<''  a  cause  of  failure.  The  original 
sequence  was,  therefore,  i  2'»-43  42<b_6i8  44-24*.  Where  619-"  belongs, 
it  is  hard  to  say.  By  its  subject  it  connects  with  another  fragment 
(Ne.  8"-'8),  or  it  may  be  very  early  {v.  comm.).  7-10  belongs  to  a 
period  after  Neh. 

Another  possibility  cannot  be  ignored.  We  note  that  Ezr.  i  belongs 
to  the  time  of  Cy.,  2"'-4-^  to  that  of  Dar.,  4^-'  to  that  of  Xerxes,* 
and  4'-"a  to  that  of  Art.  The  last-named  passage  leads  right  up  to 
the  work  of  Neh.,  which  is  also  in  the  time  of  Art.  Now  between  Ezr. 
4"="  and  Ne.  i  we  have,  first,  the  story  of  Ezra  (7-10),  which  should 
follow  Neh.'s  story;  second  (4-*^-6^^),  a  late  and  practically  valueless 
document;  and  third  (6"--),  also  prob.  late.  It  is,  therefore,  per- 
fectly possible  that  the  original  order  was  i  2"^4"»,  Ne.  The  Aram, 
version  of  the  temple-building  story  should  have  been  put  in  directly 
after  4^,  as  it  practically  is  in  Jos.  But  the  compiler  failed  to  see  that 
the  Aram,  was  but  a  dup.,  and  thus  the  mischief  was  wrought. 

In  Ne.  it  is  easy  to  follow  a  correct  order,  as  shown  in  the  notes  on  the 
sections,  so  far  as  his  own  work  is  concerned.  The  order  is  i  2  3"- 
75  II  i2"-«  31-"  5  13  and  10,  which  is  a  sequel  to  c.  13.  There  follows 
the  story  of  Ezra's  administration  (Ezr.  7-10,  Ne.  8'-").  The  rest  of 
the  material  cannot  be  dated,  and  must  be  grouped  by  subjects.  The 
chron.  order  of  the  whole,  so  far  as  it  can  be  determined,  is  as  follows : 

(a)  Ezr.  i;  (b)  Ezr.  2 '"-4'  4"-*^-6'^;  (c)  Ezr.  4<-=  4"-°-*''  Ne.  i  2  3'3-4" 
51-75  11  i227-«  31-325  13  10  12"-*';  (d)  Ezr.  7-10  Ne.  8'-"  Ezr.  6"-" 
Ne.  8"-'';  (e)  Ne.  9  i2'-26  7«-"  =  Ezr.  2>-«5,  and  perhaps  Ne.  11'-". 

That  under  (a)  belongs  to  the  reign  of  Cy.,  (b)  to  Dar.,  (c)  to  Art. 
(exc.  4*-^),  {d)  to  Art.  II,  and  (e)  is  uncertain,  but  prob.  is  to  be 
dated  in  the  same  reign  as  (d),  as  it  is  either  a  part  of  Ezra's  work  or  a 
natural  consequence  of  what  he  had  done.  Ne.  9,  however,  as  shown 
in  the  notes,  bears  evidences  of  the  Gk.  period,  and  may  be  one  of  the 
latest  sections  in  the  books. 

In  reading  a  historical  book  it  is  desirable  to  have  the  ma- 
terial in  proper  chronological  order.  To  rearrange  the  whole  of 
Ezr.-Ne.  would  be  needlessly  confusing;  but  it  is  deemed  best 
in  a  few  particulars  to  undo  the  mischief  of  R.      Therefore  in 

•  At  least  that  is  certain  of  4',  and  that  suffices. 


6  INTRODUCTION 

the  commentary  I  have  joined  Ezr.  7-10  to  Ne.  8-10,  and 
placed  the  whole  after  Ne.  13;  and  Ezr.  4^-2<»is  transposed  to 
follow  Ezr.  6.  The  advantages  are  manifest:  the  two  temple- 
building  stories  are  brought  together;  the  brief  passage  belong- 
ing to  the  time  of  Xerxes  has  its  proper  place;  the  Aramaic 
letters  (Ezr.  4'-24'»)  come  just  before  Ne.  i,  to  which  they  are 
an  introduction ;  the  whole  story  of  Nehemiah's  work  comes  in 
proper  sequence;  and  Ezra's  history  is  combined  and  placed 
where  it  probably  belongs  chronologically. 

§    5.      THE    TWO    EDITIONS    OF    EZRA-NEHEMIAH. 

Ezr.-Ne.  is  peculiar  in  that  it  has  come  down  to  us  in  two 
recensions,  which  at  certain  points  differ  from  each  other  quite 
radically.  It  is  true  that  something  of  the  same  condition  is 
found  in  other .  OT.  books.  In  S.  there  is  a  long  section  in 
Hebrew  which  was  not  originally  in  (^  (i  S.  1712-31  ij^^-iS^). 
There  is  a  vast  difference  also  between  the  Greek  texts  and  the 
Hebrew  in  the  books  of  Je.  and  Dn.  In  the  case  of  Ezr.-Ne., 
however,  the  so-called  Oi  follows  MT.  very  closely,  but  the 
so-called  Apocryphal  book  of  Esd.  constitutes  really  a  different 
edition  of  Ezr.-Ne. 

In  the  Apocr.  there  are  additional  sections  to  some  of  the  OT. 
books;  thus,  the  Rest  of  Est.;  Baruch  is  an  addition  to  Je.;  the  Song 
of  the  Three  Holy  Children,  the  history  of  Susanna,  and  Bel  and  the 
Dragon  are  additions  to  Dn.  But  in  all  these  there  is  nothing  corre- 
sponding to  any  part  of  ^  ;  the  passages  are  additions  pure  and  simple 
and  found  only  in  Gk.  Esd.,  on  the  other  hand,  is  merely  a  variant 
edition  of  a  part  of  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.  For  the  most  part,  it  is  a  faithful 
translation  of  1^,  but  with  addition  and  subtraction  and  rearrangement. 
This  book  is  of  such  vital  importance  to  our  work  that;a  fuller  discus- 
sion is  essential,  and  it  is  well  worthy  of  a  section  by  itself. 

§   6.      I  ESDRAS. 

In  Greek  this  edition  of  the  history,  as  the  title  Esd.  shows, 
has  the  priority;  the  Greek  translation  of  the  whole  of  Ezr.-Ne. 
is  known  as  2  Esd.  or  Esd.^  In  Lagarde's  edition  of  Codex  Luci- 
anus  this  order  is  reversed,  an  evidence  of  an  effort,  manifested 


I    ESDRAS  7 

on  every  page  of  this  nevertheless  valuable  text,  to  conform  to 
the  MT.  more  closely  than  other  Greek  texts.  But  the  evidence 
is  overwhelmingly  in  favour  of  the  priority  of  Esd.,  and  the  ex- 
planation can  only  be,  as  I  infer  to  be  Torrey's  conclusion  too, 
that  this  edition  was  preferred.  Indeed,  Sir  Henry  Howorth 
has  argued  (of  whose  work  more  anon),  that  Esd.  is  the  orig- 
inal Septuagint  text,  and  that  our  Hebrew  edition  is  really  the 
Apocryphal  book. 

The  subjoined  table  will  show  the  contents  of  this  edition  in  com- 
parison with  MT. 


ESD. 

MT. 

C.    I 

= 

2  Ch.  35,  36 

21-15 

= 

Ezr.  I 

216-30 

= 

"     47-24 

3^5' 

= 

not  in  MT. 

57.ra 

= 

Ezr.  2^45 

6,7 

= 

"     5,6 

8>-9« 

= 

"      7-10 

9"-55 

= 

Ne.  7 '^812 

It  will  be  noted  that  there  is  one  long  addition  (3 '-5').  This  is 
the  only  element  in  the  book  which  ace.  to  other  usage  can  be  called 
Apocr.,  for  the  Apocr.  comprises  the  books  or  sections  of  books  which 
were  known  only  in  a  Gk.  original.  This  addition  contains  the  story 
of  the  Three  Youths,  or  Guardsmen  of  Dar.  At  the  time  of  a  great 
feast,  the  Three  Guardsmen  competed  in  a  test  of  wisdom,  to  deter- 
mine which  was  strongest,  wine,  the  king,  or  women.  The  third  con- 
testant, who  was  the  victor,  is  identified  with  Zer.  in  what  is  usually 
regarded  as  a  gl.  (4"),  easily  suggested  by  5«,  ace.  to  which  Zer.  spoke 
wise  sentences  before  Dar.  This  statement  may  account  for  the  plac- 
ing of  this  whole  story  as  a  prelude  to  the  mission  of  Zer.  By  some 
rather  mysterious  process  not  made  clear  in  the  text,  probably  because 
of  an  addition  here  from  a  moral  interest,  Zer.  switches  off  to  prove  that 
truth  is  stronger  than  either  wine,  kings,  or  women.  Down  to  this 
point  (4"),  the  story  is  a  sort  of  a  joke,  and  might  belong  to  court 
jesters,  but  at  the  close  the  story  is  given  a  serious  turn. 

At  4"  we  reach  a  new  section,  doubtless  originally  quite  indepen- 
dent of  the  preceding.  Torrey  has  sufficiently  demonstrated  this  point 
(ES."  f  •).  Now  we  come  to  an  important  passage,  fully  discussed  in 
the  intr.  to  Ezr.  3,  in  which  Zer.  obtains  a  grant  from  the  king,  collects 
a  company,  and  goes  up  from  Pers.  to  Jerus.  to  rebuild  the  temple. 

To  revert  to  the  table,  we  note  that  Esd.  contains  two  c.  of  Ch.,  all 
of  Ezr.  exc.  a  single  v.  (4'),  but  only  a  very  small  section  of  Ne.     There 


INTRODUCTION 

is  not  a  word  about  Neh.'s  great  work,  nor  is  there  anything  of  Ne. 
8>»-io,  which  are  almost  universally,  but  incorrectly,  as  I  shall  try  to 
show  later,  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  Ezra  story. 

The  rearrangement  appears  at  two  points.  First,  the  Art.  letters, 
Ezr.  4'-"  =  Esd.  2^^-^",  are  placed  immediately  after  the  story  of  Shes.'s 
return,  and  so  between  the  reigns  of  Cy.  and  Dar.,  whence  Jos.  substi- 
tuted Cambyses  for  Art.  in  the  letters,  so  that  following  this  text  as  he 
did,  his  chronology  is  consistent.  Second,  a  part  of  the  Ezra  story  is 
removed  from  its  familiar  place  in  the  middle  of  Ne.  and  joined  directly 
to  the  part  of  Ezra's  story  contained  in  the  book  called  by  his  name; 
i.e.,  Ne.  7'2-8i-  follows  Ezr.  7-10. 

The  latter  of  these  variant  arrangements  undoubtedly  preserves  the 
original  order.  If  one  could  maintain  that  Ezra  went  to  Jerus.  in  the 
7th  year  of  Art.,  a  date  shown  later  to  be  impossible,  it  would  still  be 
out  of  the  question  for  Ezra  to  begin  publishing  the  law  at  least  fifteen 
years  later.  Even  if  Ezra  and  Neh.  were  contemporaries,  no  historian 
would  have  severed  the  Ezra  story  by  the  insertion  of  a  part  of  the  Ne. 
narrative  without  adequate  reason,  and  there  is  no  reason  at  all  here. 

But  it  is  shown  elsw.  that  the  place  of  the  Art.  letters  (Ezr.  4'-"a)  in 
the  Esd.  text  is  not  original.  Indeed,  their  situation  is  more  inconsistent 
in  this  text  than  in  ^,  for  to  say  nothing  of  the  putting  of  Art.  before 
Dar.,  we  have  in  this  edition  an  account  of  the  stopping  of  the  building 
of  the  temple  before  that  work  had  been  begun.  In  this  edition  the 
passage  stands  as  a  bald  interpolation.  It  has  neither  ancestry  nor 
posterity,  so  that  one  may  wonder  whether  it  was  an  original  part  of  the 
Esd.  text  at  all.  It  may  have  been  put  in  by  a  later  hand  because  it 
was  in  the  Heb.  The  striking  result  would  be  that  the  original  Esd. 
edition  of  the  history  knows  of  no  interference  with  the  Jews  in  their 
efforts  to  rebuild  the  temple. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  when  this  Art.  correspondence  was 
placed  directly  after  the  reign  of  Cy.,  the  name  of  the  king  was  changed 
to  Cambyses,  and  that  it  so  stood  in  the  Esd.  text  in  the  time  of  Jos., 
for  that  historian  would  not  have  been  likely  to  change  the  name  of  a 
king,  and  that  here  he  actually  followed  his  source.  If  that  is  the  case 
there  are  some  interesting  considerations  to  be  noted.  The  author  of 
Esd.  was  pretty  well  informed,  and  may  easily  have  rebelled  against 
placing  an  event  of  the  reign  of  Art.  before  the  building  of  the  temple. 
This  writer  knew  that  the  temple  was  built  in  the  time  of  Dar.  He 
knew  that  Art.  did  not  precede  Dar.  Therefore  he  transposed  the  pas- 
sage and  substituted  the  name  Cambyses  for  Art. 

In  MT.  the  name  of  Xerxes  also  appears  before  that  of  Dar.  (Ezr. 
4«),  but  this  name  is  not  found  in  Esd.  anywhere.  In  other  words, 
Esd.  knows  of  but  one  king  between  Cy.  and  Dar.,  and  the  author 
must  have  known  that  that  was  Cambyses.  We  might  then  infer  that 
he  was  right,  and  follow  many  scholars  in  thus  changing  the  name  of 


I    ESDRAS  9 

the  king.  But  it  is  apparent  that  the  contents  of  the  passage  arc  in- 
consistent with  its  position,  for  it  would  give  us  an  account  of  the 
interruption  of  the  temple-building  before  the  foundations  were  laid. 
While  the  position  of  the  passage  would  fit  the  reign  of  Cambyses,  its 
contents  are  inconsistent  with  that  date. 

To  return  to  the  addition,  one  part  of  it  (3 '-4"),  as  Torrey  lias  shown 
(ES-^O,  has  nothing  to  do  with  Heb.  history,  but  the  rest  (4*^50  is, 
or  at  least  contains,  what  we  absolutely  need  as  an  explanation  of  the 
events  described  in  Ezr.  3.  To  jump  from  Ezr.  i  to  Ezr.  3  involves 
a  wild  flight,  and  in  our  text  nothing  intervenes  but  a  list  of  names, 
which  certainly  does  not  seem  to  make  a  historical  connection.  Inci- 
dentally we  have  here  a  possible  explanation  of  the  insertion  of  the 
hst  of  Ezr.  2.  There  was  certainly  a  historical  section  between  Ezr.  i 
and  3.  The  Chr.  or  some  later  editor  cut  out  the  passage  because  it 
spoiled  his  theory  of  the  delay  in  building  the  temple.  The  gap  was 
supplied  in  MT.  by  the  insertion  of  the  strange  list  (2^-«^).  Later  this 
Hst  was  put  into  the  Esd.  text,  and  as  it  is  joined  closely  to  Ezr.  3 
it  was  separated  from  Ezr.  i,  for  it  could  not  join  at  both  ends  in  a 
text  which  preserved  the  lost  material  which  was  original  between 
the  two  c.  What  this  material  was  is  fully  stated  in  the  intr.  to 
Ezr.  3.  Its  great  importance  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  fixes  the  history 
related  in  Ezr.  2 '"-43  as  belonging  to  the  reign  of  Dar.  It  is  hard  for 
me  to  understand  how  so  accomplished  a  scholar  as  Torrey  can  insist 
that  the  events  narrated  here  belong  to  the  reign  of  Cy.  It  is  no  more 
reasonable  to  substitute  Cy.  for  Dar.  in  this  text  than  for  Jos.  to  sub- 
stitute Cambyses  for  Art.  in  his  account  of  the  letters  in  4.''-'^*^.  The 
appeal  is  made  to  Esd.  5"  =  Ezr.  4',  where  the  Jews  say  they  will 
build  the  temple  as  King  Cy.  commanded  them  (so  Thackeray,  DB. 
art.  "  I  Esd.").  But  surely  there  is  no  reason  why  Zer.  in  the  time  of 
Dar.  should  not  appeal  to  the  earlier  decree  of  Cy.  The  edicts  of 
Cy.  were  not  invalidated  by  his  death. 

Sir  Henry  Howorth  has  written  many  interesting  articles  about  this 
book.*  One  of  the  points  upon  which  he  is  most  insistent  is  that 
Esd.  is  the  original  C§>,  while  the  Gk.  2  Esd.,  usually  known  as  (B,  is  really 
Theodotion's  translation.  Much  credit  is  due  to  this  accomplished 
scholar  for  his  persistent  efl'orts  to  bring  Esd.  into  the  prominence  it 
deserves.  And  yet  I  agree  with  Torrey  that  his  main  contention  is  of 
little  value.  His  fundamental  mistake  is  the  underlying  theory  that 
there  was  an  authoritative  and  standard  Gk.  translation  of  the  OT. 
comparable  to  the  AV.  in  English,  a  sort  of  official  textus  recepius.  The 
fact  is  that  i  and  2  Esd.  are  quite  independent  translations  of  Semitic 
originals,  but  they  are  renderings  of  different  editions,  i  Esd.  had  one 
Semitic  text  of  which  it  is  a  free  and  idiomatic  version;  2  Esd.  is  a 
slavishly  literal  rendering  of  our  present  MT. 

•  Academy,  1893,  Proceedings  of  Ihe  Society  of  Biblical  Archceology,  1901-2. 


lO  INTRODUCTION 

It  follows  from  this  indisputable  fact  that  Esd.  is  of  vastly  greater 
value  to  the  OT.  student  than  (B  and  all  the  other  Vrss.  which  de- 
pend upon  it.  Sir  Henry's  point  is  well  taken  in  this  respect.  Few 
scholars  have  availed  themselves  of  the  treasures  hidden  away  in  this 
storehouse.  As  Howorth  suggests,  there  has  been  too  much  of  a  ten- 
dency to  make  a  fetish  of  MT.  Even  scholars  are  not  dissociated  en- 
tirely from  the  theory  once  held  as  essential  to  orthodoxy  that  the  words 
and  even  the  pointing  of  MT.  are  inspired.  This  comm.  will  show 
ample  use  of  this  important  text  by  whose  aid  alone  some  of  the  grave 
problems  have  been  solved. 

An  interesting  question  about  Esd.  concerns  its  original  form.  Many 
scholars  maintain  that  it  is  complete  as  it  stands.  Others,  like  Howorth 
and  Torrey,  insist  that  it  is  a  fragment  from  the  middle  of  the  complete 
Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.  The  question  is  not  of  vital  importance  here,  yet  some 
consideration  is  necessary.  In  favour  of  the  latter  view,  it  is  noted  that 
Esd.  ends  with  one  word  of  Ne.  8",  y.ad  i%iauyfix^i)is(xv  =  iDDNj.  Torrey 
believes  that  the  surviving  fragment  came  from  a  Gk.  not  a  Semitic 
MS.,  as  Ne.  S'^  begins  ''J'^'h  nrai  (ES.'O-  In  Cod.^  this  v.  is  com- 
pleted, and  I  am  convinced  that  we  have  here  one  of  the  many  attempts 
to  bring  Esd.  into  conformity  with  MT.  In  other  words,  Esd.  really 
ends  the  Ezra  story  with  Ne.  8'-,  and  in  my  opinion  that  text  never 
contained  any  more  about  Ezra. 

This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  Jos.  It  is  contended 
by  Howorth  and  Torrey  that  Jos.  uses  Ne.  8"  ff-.  This  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  be  the  case.  He  does,  indeed,  refer  to  the  Feast  of  Booths,  but 
only  as  a  note  of  time;  for  he  makes  it  the  occasion  of  the  assembly 
in  the  7th  month  at  which  the  law  was  read  as  described  in  Ne.  8'-'*  = 
Esd.  g3'-55  {Anl.  xi,  5,  5).  There  is  not  a  reference  to  anything  related 
in  Ne.  9,  10.  Jos.  knew  nothing  of  any  event  in  the  story  of  Ezr.  after 
the  reading  of  the  law. 

If  Esd.  is  but  a  fragment  of  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.,  it  must  have  contained 
an  account  of  Neh.'s  work.  Jos.  deals  with  Neh.  rather  summarily  (An(. 
xi,  5,  6-8),  whom,  as  well  as  Ezra,  he  places  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes. 
His  treatment  is  most  full  in  that  which  corresponds  to  Ne.  1,2,  though 
in  this  there  are  rather  more  than  the  usual  number  of  glaring  inac- 
curacies. He  has  a  considerable  account  of  the  trouble  Neh.  encoun- 
tered from  the  enemy,  a  summary  of  Ne.  4,  6.  He  then  proceeds  with 
a  brief  account  of  the  dedication  of  the  walls  as  in  Ne.  12"-",  and  then 
takes  up  the  peopling  of  the  city  as  in  Ne.  71- "a  ni  f-,  and  finally  he 
describes  the  provisions  for  the  pr.  and  Lev.  (Ne.  13"-").*  Now  the 
amazing  fact  is  that  Jos.  shows  a  knowledge  of  every  part  of  N. 
exc.  c.  5,  and  that  he  uses  nothing  else  from  the  book  of  Ne.  save  S*-", 
a  part  of  Ezra's  story.    It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  if  Esd.  ever  went 

•This  statement  differs  somewhat  from  Torrey's  (ES."),  but  is,  I  believe,  as  accurate  a 
determination  as  can  be  made  with  confidence. 


I    ESDRAS  II 

any  further  than  it  does  now,  the  lost  contents  comprised  N.  and 
nothing  else  whatever.  Jos.  never  could  have  picked  out  this  story 
from  our  present  text.  In  his  treatment  of  the  book  of  Ezr.  he  does 
not  quote  the  lists  of  names,  but  he  refers  to  them,  showing  that  they 
were  in  the  text  he  used,  but  in  the  use  of  the  book  of  Ne.  there  is  no 
hint  of  a  list  of  names  anywhere,  not  even  of  the  wall-builders. 

In  what  form  the  memoirs  were  to  which  Jos.  had  access  it  is  im- 
possible to  say.  These  could  hardly  have  survived  as  a  separate  pro- 
duction in  his  time;  yet  they  were  originally  published  in  that  form; 
and  what  we  have  includes  all  that  Jos.  knew.  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
he  used  the  same  text  for  the  whole  Pers.  period,  and  certainly  he  had 
these  records  in  Gk.;  therefore  we  may  with  a  certain  degree  of  prob- 
abihty  conclude  that  Esd.  originally  contained  the  unadulterated  N. 
In  that  case  the  fragmentary  hypothesis  is  the  only  tenable  one. 

One  other  point,  though,  it  is  commonly  known,  needs  mention.  In 
his  account  of  the  return  and  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  related  in 
Ezr.  1-6,  Jos.  follows  Esd.,  not  MT.  He  puts  4'  f-  after  c.  i,  and  he 
incorporates  the  story  of  the  Three  Guardsmen.  But  he  unmistakably 
puts  the  events  described  in  3^-4 '^  in  the  reign  of  Dar.,  making  36-"  an 
actual  completion  of  the  temple  {A>it.  xi,  4,  2;  see  further  under  the 
reign  of  Dar.).  He  is  quite  consistent,  making  5,  6  a  sort  of  sequel  to 
the  preceding  story,  omitting  entirely  4-^'^-5'.  His  date  for  3'-4^  is 
the  only  possible  one  to  be  derived  from  Esd.,  and  his  use  of  3*-'3  = 
Esd.  5  "-66  shows  that  he  had  a  better  text  than  most  of  those  which 
have  come  down  to  us. 

It  is  sometimes  stated  that  Jos.  goes  beyond  Esd.  and  shows  a  knowl- 
edge of  2  Esd.  (S  (e.  g.,  DB.  i,"')-  At  the  end  of  Shes.'s  story,  he 
does  say  that  42,462  came  up  at  that  time,  as  in  Ezr.  2,  but  he  uses 
this  list  fully  where  it  stands  in  Esd.  He  gives  an  intr.  to  the  Art- 
letters  which  is  based  on  Ezr.  4'-',  but  he  uses  that  material  again, 
and  these  are  probably  but  patches.  Jos.  sometimes  follows  his  sources 
so  loosely  that  such  usage  hardly  serves  as  an  argument.  The  excep- 
tion is  about  enough  to  prove  the  rule.  Jos.  certainly  does  not  make 
any  use  of  our  canonical  Ezr.-Ne. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  numerous  changes  in  Esd.  to  bring 
this  edition  into  nearer  agreement  with  MT.  It  is  manifest  that  many 
of  these  changes  have  been  made  since  the  time  of  Jos.,  for  in  several 
important  points  he  bears  witness  to  another  text  than  that  which 
has  come  down  to  us.  This  is  esp.  the  case  in  Ezr.  36-13.  It  is  also 
probable  that  Cambyses  was  in  the  text  of  Esd.  which  Jos.  used 
instead  of  Art.  The  cause  of  this  revising  is  determinable  to  a  high 
degree  of  probability.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  well  known  that  the 
tendency  to  correct  the  Gk.  version  on  the  basis  of  the  Heb.  is  dis- 
coverable in  every  book  of  the  OT.  Rut  there  is  a  special  reason  why 
that  correcting  process  should  be  marked  in  this  particular  book.     For 


12  INTRODUCTION 

this  work  existed  in  two  quite  different  Vrss.,  and  these  were  strug- 
gling for  supremacy  the  one  against  the  other.  In  the  time  of  Jos. 
it  is  clear  that  Esd.  was  preferred  among  the  Jews;  for  Jos.  was  in 
bad  repute  with  his  brethren  because  of  his  pro-Romanism,  and  he  was 
politic  enough  to  use  the  most  popular  sources  for  his  history. 

Three  centuries  later  this  edition  had  lost  caste.  Jerome's  attitude 
shows  that  plainly.  He  would  not  translate  the  story  of  the  Three 
Youths.  He  insists  that  the  proper  discourses  of  Ezr.  and  Ne.  are 
contained  in  a  single  volume,  and  that  whatever  is  not  contained  in 
them  is  to  be  rejected  (pref.  to  Ezr.).  Confessedly  he  formed  this 
opinion  from  his  Heb.  teachers,  so  that  in  his  day — the  preface  was 
written  a.d.  394 — Esd.  had  lost  its  former  popularity.  The  advo- 
cates of  this  edition  would  not  see  it  sink  into  disuse  without  a  serious 
effort  to  save  it.  The  chief  count  against  it  was  its  departure  from  the 
received  text.  Then  began  a  process  of  editing  to  remove  these  de- 
partures as  far  as  possible.  In  many  of  the  texts  the  original  is  pretty 
well  erased.  But  in  Cod.^  the  changes  were  often  made  simply  by 
adding  a  translation  of  MT.  to  the  original  Esd.,  so  that  it  is  still 
possible  in  places  to  recover  the  primitive  text. 

The  Vrss.  available  for  the  textual  criticism  of  Ezr.-Ne.  are 
the  same  as  those  for  Ch.,  a  full  and  scholarly  discussion  of 
which  is  given  by  Curtis,  Intr.  §»,  and  need  not  be  repeated 
here.  The  Vrss.  really  serve  little  purpose,  with  the  single  ex- 
ception of  Esd.,  which  has  been  fully  treated  above,  and  of 
which  but  a  few  more  words  are  necessary  from  the  point  of 
view  of  textual  criticism. 

It  has  been  shown  that  Esd.  is  a  translation  of  a  Semitic  text.  Tor- 
rey  has  given  pretty  convincing  evidence  that  the  story  of  the  Three 
Guardsmen  is  from  an  Aram,  original  (ES.^"  ^■).  It  has  long  been  sus- 
pected that  Esd.  5'-=  is  from  a  Heb.  source,  and  that  is  doubtless 
correct.  But  it  is  equally  plain  that  Esd.  is  not  a  translation  of  the 
present  MT.  No  translator  would  take  such  liberties  as  we  find  in 
that  version.  Those  who  rendered  the  Scriptures  into  Gk.  were  moved, 
as  all  other  translators,  to  give  a  faithful  version  of  the  text  before  them, 
which  they  desired  to  make  accessible  to  people  who  knew  only  the  Gk. 
tongue.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  there  were  two  editions  of 
this  book  in  Semitic,  of  which  the  one  finally  adopted  in  the  Heb. 
canon  is  the  longer  and  the  worse.  On  these  two  editions,  see  further 
ES.i'ff- 

The  most  complete  presentation  of  the  apparatus  for  the  textual 
criticism  of  our  books  is  presented  in  ES.  c.  4.    Torrey  greatly  prefers 


THE    SEMITIC   TEXT  1 3 

Cod.'^  to  ^,  and  urges  great  caution  in  the  use  of  '-.  The  caution  is 
wise,  and  3'et  some  of  the  most  important  aids  to  the  correction  of  the 
text  are  hidden  in  that  version. 


§    7.      THE    SEMITIC    TEXT. 

In  places  the  text  of  Ezr.-Ne.  is  very  well  preserved.  In 
N.  especially  there  is  as  a  rule  very  little  trouble  once  the 
interpolations  are  recognised.  But  on  the  whole  MT.  is  in 
decidedly  bad  shape.  At  times  the  confusion  is  so  great  that 
the  work  of  the  critic  is  most  difficult.  In  some  places  there 
is  a  wholesale  corruption  of  the  text  in  the  interest  of  the  his- 
torical theory  of  the  editor. 

The  great  majority  of  writers  have  accepted  MT.  and  have 
simply  tried  to  make  out  of  it  the  best  they  could.  There  is  no 
reason,  however,  for  confining  ourselves  to  one  text  in  a  case 
in  which  we  have  good  support  for  another  and  a  better  reading. 
In  places  the  result  is  most  surprising  and  important.  Many  of 
the  critical  theories  of  both  the  older  and  newer  writers  are  de- 
pendent on  the  corrupt  MT.  A  reconstruction  of  these  theories 
is  only  possible  in  the  light  of  a  thorough-going  criticism  of  the 
text.  This  needs  to  go  much  further  than  Guthe's  in  Haupt's 
SBOT.  I  myself  worked  for  years  on  the  supposition  that  there 
was  an  early  and  fruitless  effort  to  rebuild  the  temple.  But 
the  discovery  of  the  true  text  of  Ezr.  3  compelled  a  radical 
change  of  opinion. 

The  discovery  of  these  corruptions,  and  in  many  places  the 
recovery  of  the  true  text,  has  another  important  consequence. 
It  proves  beyond  a  doubt  that  there  are  original  sources  where 
previously  a  passage  has  been  assigned  wholly  to  Chr.  If  a 
text  has  been  corrupted  to  make  it  suit  a  purpose,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  text  in  its  original  form  is  not  the  work  of  R. 
In  that  way  it  is  demonstrated  that  there  are  Hebrew  sources 
in  these  books,  and  so  the  contributions  of  the  Chronicler  are 
correspondingly  diminished. 


14  INTRODUCTION 


§   8.      THE    SOURCES. 

In  the  book  of  Ch.  we  find  many  sections  of  S.  and  K.  in- 
serted almost  verbatim.  There  is  a  claim  further  that  the 
compiler  used  many  other  sources  (see  Curt.  Intr.-^  ^■).  It  is 
true  that  some  scholars,  as  Torrey,  deny  that  these  sources  were 
genuine,  insisting  that  the  Chronicler  pretends  to  quote  to  add 
plausibility  to  his  history  (ES.  c.  7).  Our  books  were  originally 
a  part  of  the  book  of  Ch.,  and  we  should  expect  the  same 
method  to  have  been  pursued.  And  our  expectations  are  re- 
alised, for  it  is  possible  to  pick  out  some  of  the  sources,  even 
though  we  have  no  parallels  for  control  as  we  have  in  S.  and 
K.  There  is  not,  unfortunately,  much  agreement  among  schol- 
ars as  to  the  limits  of  some  of  these  sources.  There  is  noth- 
ing then  left  for  me  but  to  give  my  conclusions,  which  are, 
however,  based  on  many  years'  study  of  these  books.  The 
results  will  be  seen  to  be  decidedly  conservative. 

(i)   The  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah  =  N. 

Beginning  with  a  source  about  the  presence  of  which  there 
is  no  difference  of  opinion,  there  is  certainly  incorporated  in  the 
book  which  bears  his  name  some  personal  memoirs  of  Nehe- 
miah. These  are  all  written  in  the  first  person,  and  the  nar- 
rative is  terse  and  vivid.  The  memoirs  were  written  for  the 
most  part  soon  after  the  close  of  his  first  administration  (v.  5'^), 
and  as  a  historical  source  rank  among  the  very  best  in  OT. 
Nehemiah  knew  how  to  accomplish  results,  even  in  the  face  of 
the  gravest  difficulties,  and  he  also  knew  how  to  tell  what  he 
had  done  without  waste  of  words.  In  some  places  N.  has 
somewhat  the  character  of  a  diary  or  journal.  The  brief  pray- 
ers and  imprecations  scattered  through  the  document  make 
the  impression  of  a  narrative  originally  written  for  the  author's 
eye  alone. 

The  agreement  of  scholars  ceases,  however,  the  moment  we 
attempt  to  determine  the  limits  of  the  memoirs.    There  is  a 


THE   MEMOIRS   OF   EZRA  1 5 

minimum  about  which  all  are  agreed,  but  the  moment  we  step 
beyond  that  boundary  contention  arises. 

The  vast  majority  of  modern  scholars  set  rather  large  limits  to  these 
memoirs.  Berth.  Sieg.  Ryle,  and  Dr.  practically  agree  that  N.  covers 
Ne.  1-7  i2"-«  134-31.  Berth,  and  Sieg.  exc.  12"-'' -^o-^^-^^,  but  Sieg. 
adds  II' f-  and  Dr.  adds  13'-".  Torrey,  on  the  other  extreme,  finds 
N.  only  in  11-2'  2^^-^  4'-6'5.  All  agree  that  7^-"  was  not  written  by 
Neh.,  but  the  scholars  who  include  this  in  N.  suppose,  wrongly  I  be- 
lieve, that  it  was  incorporated  in  N.  by  Neh. 

It  seems  certain  that  ^^-'^^  is  not  from  N.  It  has  none  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  that  document,  but  is  very  like  other  lists  in  our  books, 
and  it  is  quite  out  of  place  where  it  stands,  interrupting  the  narrative 
sadly  (v.  notes  on  Ne.  3).  I  have  shown  in  the  notes  reasons  which 
are  sufficient  to  reject  2'-3a.  I  can  see  no  satisfactory  evidence  against 
233-38  616-19  yi-6a  j^e-na.  exc.  v.  ".  The  last  passage  is  not  only  writ- 
ten in  the  first  p.,  but  also  has  numerous  characteristics  of  N.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  rejecting  i^-ua^  the  major  por- 
tion of  Neh.'s  prayer,  which  is  too  close  to  a  t>T3e  to  be  composed  by 
Neh.  (v.  notes),  one  point  in  which  I  go  beyond  Torrey,  who  only 
goes  so  far  as  to  assume  editorial  revision.  I  believe  it  a  piece  of 
editorial  composition.  In  the  passage  describing  the  dedication  of  the 
walls  (12"-"),  there  are  unmistakable  traces  of  N.,  e.  g.,  in  ^i  f-  as.  4ob^ 
but  a  story  like  this  was  too  tempting  to  the  Chr.,  and  he  has  so  em- 
bellished it  with  interpolations  to  bring  pr..  Lev.,  music,  and  sacri- 
fices into  prominent  place  that  Neh.'s  own  simple,  straightforward 
story  is  buried  beyond  hope  of  recovery.  Torrey  notes  that  2'^''  333(1. 
4>  ff-  repeat  one  another  rather  awkwardly,  an  awkwardness  much  in- 
creased by  the  elimination  of  ^^-^-  (ES.^^^).  That  is  quite  true,  and 
yet  I  doubt  if  any  of  the  passages  exc.  possibly  333-35  ^an  be  legit- 
imately questioned.    The  portions  which  are  from  N.  are,  therefore, 

(2)   The  Memoirs  of  Ezra  =  E. 

It  has  been  the  practically  unanimous  opinion  of  Biblical 
scholars  that  another  important  and  trustworthy  source  is 
found  in  E.  This,  it  is  claimed,  includes  Ezr.  72^-8^'*  9^-^^; 
such,  at  all  events,  are  the  conclusion  of  such  competent  schol- 
ars as  Driver,  Ryle,  Cornill,  Kosters,  Siegfried,  and  Bertholet. 

Before  discussing  the  matter  further,  it  is  necessary  to  reduce  the 
space  of  the  memoirs  somewhat.     First,  we  must  eliminate  8'-",  the 


1 6  INTRODUCTION 

list  of  the  heads  of  the  fathers  who  went  up  with  Ezra.  There  is  noth- 
ing to  suggest  E.  in  the  whole  passage  save  the  "  with  me  "  'cy  in  v. '. 
The  V.  is  disjointed  and  shows  an  editor's  hands,  for  "  from  Bab."  is 
connected  with  "went  up,"  and  we  may  infer  that  "  with  me"  was  in- 
serted from  7^',  or  else  that  we  should  read  by  a  very  slight  change  "  with 
him."  The  passage  is  out  of  place  here,  as  it  gives  a  list  of  his  company 
before  Ezra  makes  his  inspection  (v.  ">).  It  would  come  better  after 
7'",  as  7'-'°  summarises  the  whole  story  and  commits  other  sins  of 
anticipation.  Yet  it  must  be  noted  that  the  list  is  peculiar  in  the 
designation  "  males,"  and  in  the  silence  about  the  temple  ofiicers  so 
liberally  supplied  in  7'.  The  explanation  about  the  Neth.  in  8=°  is 
suspicious;  indeed,  the  whole  v.  is  prob.  an  addition  by  the  Chr.  The 
same  hand  prob.  produced  vv.  ^e  '■  '<>■  ".35^  for  reasons  given  in  the 
notes.    Also  gub-is  are  to  be  excluded,  so  that  for  E.  we  have  7^"- 

giS-IS.    21-26.    28  f.    31   f.    36  gl-lla.    13-15^    thOUgh   8'^  iS   dub. 

Now  if  these  are  genuine  memoirs  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  their  histor- 
ical value.  But  Torrey  has  for  years  maintained  that  the  Ezra  memoirs 
are  a  myth,  insisting  that  the  whole  Ezra  story  is  composed  by  the 
Chr.,  and  in  fact  the  character  of  Ezra  was  created  by  him,  so  that 
Ezr.  7-10  and  Ne.  7"^io  are  fiction  pure  and  simple  (ES.238-248j  cf.  Comp. 
14  £f.  67  ff.)  A  part  of  this  radical  opinion  will  be  examined  later.  Here 
we  are  concerned  with  the  memoirs  only.  Torrey's  conclusion  rests 
essentially  on  linguistic  material.  He  gives  a  list  of  some  thirty  words 
from  the  parts  which  are  assigned  to  E.  and  which  he  declares  to  be 
characteristic  of  the  Chr.  (c/.  Comp.^^  ^■).  He  goes  so  far  as  to  declare 
deliberately,  as  the  "result  of  a  good  deal  of  hard  study,"  that  "there 
is  no  portion  of  the  whole  work  of  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.  in  which  the  Chr.'s 
literary  peculiarities  are  more  strongly  marked,  more  abundant,  more 
evenly  and  continuously  distributed,  and  more  easil}'  recognisable  than 
in  the  Heb.  narrative  of  Ezr.  7-10  and  Ne.  8-10"  (ES.-"). 

The  use  of  the  first  p.  is  easily  explained  by  Torrey  on  the  ground 
that  the  Chr.  employed  it  in  deliberate  imitation  of  N.  He  cites 
other  cases  in  which  there  is  transition  from  the  first  p.  to  the  third. 
Torrey  has  overlooked,  so  far  as  I  recall,  what  might  be  a  strong 
argument  in  support  of  his  contention,  viz.,  that  in  some  places  certain 
Vrss.  have  the  third  p.  where  MT.  has  the  first,  e.  g.,  8"  '■  in  Esd.'^, 
91-'  in  Esd.^. 

But  we  note  that  the  first  p.  occurs  in  Esd.  where  N.  is  not  found, 
and  where  it  may  never  have  existed.  The  Ezra  story  may  have  been 
once  published  quite  independently  of  that  of  Neh.  Then  again  it  is 
inconceivable  that  the  Chr.  should  have  written  by  far  the  major  part 
of  the  Ezra  story  in  the  third  p.,  and  then  employed  the  first  in  such  a 
limited  part.  That  is  esp.  the  case  as  these  passages  in  the  first  p. 
are  precisely  those  which  raise  no  suspicion  on  the  ground  of  credibility. 

But  the  most  decisive  argument  is  the  relation  of  the  various  parts 


THE   MEMOIRS   OF   EZRA  1 7 

of  the  narrative  to  each  other.  It  is  incredible  that  Ezr.  7-10  was  all 
written  by  the  same  person,  the  Chr.  or  any  one  else  whatsoever.  In 
711  Ezra's  whole  company  arrives  in  Jerus.,  and  the  members  of  the 
company  are  enumerated  in  8"->^  while  in  7°'  and  its  direct  sequel,  8", 
Ezr^,  is  beginning  to  gather  a  caravan  at  Ahava.  Then,  in  the  letter 
of  Art.,  Ezra  is  clothed  with  enormous  powers,  but  in  the  actual  record 
of  his  deeds  he  never  once  calls  upon  any  authority  but  the  law.  The 
difference  in  this  respect  between  Ezra  and  Neh.  is  very  marked.  Neh. 
acts  as  governor  and  uses  his  authority,  but  Ezra  can  only  appeal  to 
the  people  to  obey  the  law.  Surely  a  single  author  would  have  aimed 
at  greater  consistency. 

It  has  been  conceded  by  several  scholars,  esp.  since  the  publica- 
tion of  Torrey's  Composilion  (1896),  that  E.  has  been  worked  over  a 
great  deal,  and  that  the  numerous  marks  of  the  Chr.  which  Torrey 
has  pointed  out  are  due  to  his  revision.  But  Torrey  in  his  later 
work  (ES.  19 10)  asserts  that  the  Chr.  does  not  revise  his  material, 
that  he  either  incorporates  bodily  or  composes  entirely.  Torrey  cites 
as  an  instance  the  parallel  N.  which  he  says  the  Chr.  has  practically 
not  revised. 

My  own  studies  constrain  me  to  dissent  from  this  contention.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  I  am  persuaded  that  the  Chr.  revised  his  material 
pretty  freely  whenever  it  suited  his  purpose  to  do  so.  I  may  cite 
as  an  impressive  instance  his  change  from  Yahweh  to  Satan  as  the 
tempter  of  David  (i  Ch.  2i»  =  28.  24O.  (See  further  evidence  in 
Curt.  /«/r.'-"'  ")•  But  the  testimony  of  our  own  books  is  decisive. 
The  Chr.  has  liberally  revised  Ezr.  3  to  make  it  square  with  his  theory 
of  the  deferred  building  of  the  temple.  In  fact,  his  hand  is  visible 
almost  everywhere. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  N.  has  been  tampered  with  comparatively 
little.  But  that  fact  is  eloquent  in  its  description  of  the  Chr.'s  method. 
The  building  of  the  wall  was  of  so  little  interest  that  in  one  recension 
the  whole  story  may  have  been  omitted.  But  when  the  Chr.  came  to 
Neh.'s  story  of  the  dedication  of  the  walls,  he  was  in  a  field  in  which  he 
was  perfectly  at  home,  and  on  a  subject  in  which  he  had  a  profound 
interest.  He  revised  the  story,  which  certainly  existed  in  N.  until  there 
are  only  dim  traces  of  the  original,  while  the  work  of  his  own  hand  is  to 
be  seen  all  through. 

Now  Torrey  is  right  in  asserting  that  Ezra  was  the  Chr.'s  hero.  The 
editor  found  the  work  of  a  kindred  spirit  in  E.  That  document  pre- 
sented material  with  which  he  was  familiar  and  on  which  he  had  very 
pronounced  opinions.  But  Ezra  lived  more  than  a  century  before  the 
Chr.  In  the  meanwhile,  many  changes  had  taken  place.  The  Chr.  was 
almost  forced  to  bring  Ezra's  work  down  to  date,  as  he  does  David's. 
He  could  hardly  use  such  a  source  without  revision.  Otherwise  there 
would  have  been  a  historical  development  in  religion,  and  such  a 


INTRODUCTION 

phenomenon  was  abhorrent  to  him.  Therefore,  Torrey's  list  does  not 
seem  to  me  at  all  decisive,  even  if  we  grant  its  validity,  as  we  must 
in  part. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Chr.  has  revised  even  N.  considerably.  He 
puts  a  suitable  prayer  in  the  cup-bearer's  mouth  (i^-"^);  he  furnishes 
the  leader  with  letters  which  he  seemed  to  think  Neh.  had  overlooked 
(27-9a|  but  V.  notes);  he  provided  a  systematic  account  of  the  method 
of  building  the  wall,  and  as  Neh.  had  afforded  nothing  to  work  on  he 
had  to  make  it  himself,  unless,  indeed,  he  found  it  ready  from  some 
other  hand,  just  as  he  elaborates  Ezra's  work;  by  the  twist  of  a  sen- 
tence he  changes  the  purpose  of  Neh.'s  assembly  and  makes  him  dis- 
cover a  then  non-existent  record  of  names  (7O;  and  finally  in  c.  13, 
where  Neh.  approaches  closely  to  the  editor's  own  field,  the  Chr.'s 
hand  has  crept  in  so  conspicuously  that  Torrey  gives  him  the  credit 
of  the  whole. 

There  is  one  more  argument  for  the  existence  of  E.,  which  is  entirely 
subjective,  and  yet  which  is  of  very  great  force  to  one  who  feels  it. 
Every  time  I  study  Ezr.  7-10,  I  feel  afresh  the  fact  that  two  voices 
speak  in  the  various  sections.  The  whole  story  as  told  in  E.  seems 
so  simple  and  natural  and  unaffected,  and  so  lacking  in  the  pomposity 
which  attaches  to  Ezra  where  the  Chr.  uses  a  free  hand,  that  it  bespeaks 
its  own  genuineness.  The  very  details  of  the  gathering  at  Ahava 
are  just  the  things  the  Chr.  would  never  think  of  composing,  as  we 
may  see  from  the  summary  way  in  which  he  actuallj'  deals  with  the 
journey  (7'-'°),  in  which  he  is  careful  to  present  abundant  names  and 
dates,  but  no  personal  history  at  all. 

Torrey's  arguments  have  failed  to  convince  those  who  have  been 
diligent  students  of  the  story  of  Ezra,  and  with  all  regard  to  his  un- 
doubted scholarship  and  industry,  I  find  myself  among  the  number 
who  must  still  take  the  Ezra  story  seriously. 


(3)   The  Aramaic  Documents. 

There  are  three  sections  of  the  book  of  Ezr.  which  are  writ- 
ten in  Aramaic:  (i)  The  correspondence  with  Artaxerxes,  4^-^^». 

(2)  The  history  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  Ezr.  ^.^'^^-6^^ 

(3)  The  edict  of  Artaxerxes  authorising  Ezra's  mission,  7^2-26^ 
As  6^^--2  is  a  late  insertion  and  7'-^"  is  the  Chronicler's  introduc- 
tion to  Ezr.,  we  have  practically  a  long  continuous  section  in 
Aramaic,  4^-7^^.  It  may  be,  therefore,  that  before  the  Chron- 
icler there  was  an  Aramaic  history  of  this  period,  which  he  used 
to  a  limited  extent.    If  there  was  such  a  source,  it  must  have 


THE   ARAMAIC   DOCUMENTS  1 9 

consisted  mainly  of  official  documents  with  a  minimum  of  intro- 
duction and  comment. 

The  first  two  of  these  pieces  are  alike  in  one  respect,  that 
while  the  bulk  of  the  material  consists  of  the  letters,  there  are 
introductory  and  other  notes  also  written  in  Aramaic.  In  the 
case  of  the  third,  however,  there  is  nothing  in  Aramaic  save 
the  letter,  the  brief  introduction  (7")  being  written  in  Hebrew. 
The  Chronicler,  therefore,  does  not  get  his  material  for  (i) 
and  (2)  at  first  hand.  Before  his  time  the  letters  had  been  pub- 
lished with  the  various  notes  before  and  after  the  epistles.  The 
third  he  may  have  quoted  at  first  hand;  at  all  events,  if  there 
ever  had  been  any  notes  on  the  letter,  the  Chronicler  left  them 
out  entirely. 

Mey.  is  the  stoutest  modern  defender  of  these  Aram,  documents 
(£«L'-")-  He  emends  the  text  of  Ezr.  4',  reading  "the  despatch  was 
written  in  Pers.  and  translated  into  Aram.,"  so  that  originally  there 
was  here  one  of  the  polylingual  inscriptions  which  abounded  in  the 
Pers.  empire.  This  argument  would  be  stronger  if  there  were  nothing 
but  the  letters.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  are  the  compiler's  com- 
ments. Mey.  would  hardly  contend  that  these,  too,  were  written  in 
Pers.  and  translated  into  Aram.  Besides  it  is  shown  in  the  notes  that 
Mey.'s  interpretation  of  4'  is  more  than  doubtful.  Mey.  claims  to  find 
a  considerable  list  of  Pers.  words  in  the  documents,  and  thus  rein- 
forces his  belief  in  Pers.  originals  and  in  the  authenticity  of  the  letters. 
But  it  does  not  seem  possible  to  group  the  documents  and  formulate 
a  single  conclusion  which  will  cover  them  all.  They  must  be  treated 
separately. 

(i)  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Chr.  incorporated  the  Art. 
correspondence  in  4'-2<a  and  did  not  compose  it,  for  he  misunderstood 
its  tenor.  Further,  there  is  no  good  reason  whatever  to  question  its 
genuineness.  It  describes  just  the  conditions  necessary  to  explain 
Neh.'s  work,  as  I  have  shown  in  the  intr.  to  the  passage,  where  also 
Kost.'s  arguments  against  its  authenticity  are  examined  in  detail. 
Further,  the  charge  of  a  tendency  to  exalt  the  Jews,  and  to  exult 
over  the  Sam.  (ES. '■"'),  certainly  does  not  apply  here,  for  in  this  source 
the  Sam.  triumph  over  the  Jews,  and  leave  Jerus.  in  the  worst  state 
it  had  known  since  586,  a  state  which  nearly  broke  Neh.'s  heart  when 
he  heard  of  it. 

(2)  I  have  myself  repeatedly  called  this  the  Aram,  version  of  the 
temple-building  story.  In  reality,  it  is  better  described  as  the  corre- 
spondence with  Dar.  about  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple.    There  is 


20  INTRODUCTION 

very  little  in  the  whole  narrative  except  the  story  of  what  the  Sam. 
rulers  did  when  they  heard  of  the  operation  at  Jerus.  and  the  Pers.  king's 
action  on  their  report.  But  the  Chr.  certainly  was  not  the  author  of 
the  piece.  The  prominence  of  the  prophets  in  5"  ,  which  Mey.,  with 
strange  obtuseness,  assigns  to  the  Chr.,  could  never  have  come  from  his 
hand.  He  makes  the  pr.  prominent  even  in  building  the  walls,  Ne.  3, 
while  the  temple-construction  is  supported  chiefly  by  the  prophets. 
Even  Torrey,  who  regards  the  source  as  worthless  historically,  admits 
that  it  is  quoted  by  the  Chr. 

It  is  a  favourite  theory  of  modem  scholars  that  this  document  has 
been  freely  edited,  and  that  there  is  an  original  and  authentic  sub- 
stratum. Torrey  really  jeers  at  this  conclusion,  saying  of  a  quota- 
tion from  Dr.'""':  "The  documents  are  not  genuine,  but  in  substance 
are  thoroughly  trustworthy"  (ES.'").  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
text  of  this  document  has  been  liberally  edited  and  is  decidedly  cor- 
rupt in  some  places,  as  I  have  shown  in  the  notes.  It  can  hardly  be 
supposed  that  a  Jewish  R.  would  modify  such  material  without  a  cer- 
tain tendency  creeping  in.  And  the  fact  that  he  modified  his  material 
shows  that  he  had  something  to  modify. 

The  bare  outline  of  the  narrative  is  as  follows:  Under  the  inspiration 
of  the  prophets  the  Jews  begin  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  in  the  2d 
year  of  Dar.  Tattenai,  the  governor  of  the  Syrian  province,  and  others 
go  to  Jerus.  to  see  what  authority  the  Jews  had  for  building  a  temple 
and  who  were  the  leaders  in  the  movement.  They  report  to  Dar.  by 
letter  the  claim  of  the  authority  of  Cy.,  and  ask  for  instructions.  Dar. 
orders  a  search  of  the  archives  and  finds  the  original  decree  of  Cy., 
which  is  quoted,  not  in  Dar.'s  letter,  but  in  the  narrative  portion.  The 
king  confirms  the  decree  of  his  predecessor  and  orders  his  officials  not 
to  interfere. 

Now  in  all  this  there  is  no  note  of  improbability.  The  Jews  in  Ele- 
phantine could  not  rebuild  their  temple  without  authority  of  the  Pers. 
officials,  and  surely  Tattenai  would  have  been  remiss  had  he  taken  no 
steps  under  the  circumstances.  The  temple  was  certainly  rebuilt  in 
the  reign  of  Dar.,  and  that  task  could  hardly  have  been  accomplished 
without  his  knowledge  and  sanction. 

The  most  serious  difficulty  is  the  inconsistency  with  the  story  in 
Esd.  4'-  f-  that  Zer.  came  to  Jerus.  in  the  reign  of  Dar.  carrying  with  him 
permission  to  rebuild  the  temple,  and  the  silence  of  Hg.  and  Zc.  about 
interference  from  any  source  whatever.  There  is  further  the  state- 
ment in  Ezr.  4'-'  that  the  Sam.  desired  to  aid  the  Jews  in  building,  and 
there  is  in  that  story  no  note  of  any  opposition.  We  are  compelled  to 
choose  between  two  contradictory  stories,  and  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  accepting  the  Heb.  story  as  correct. 

The  fact  is  that  this  story  is  inconsistent  with  itself.  In  5=  the 
temple  is  begun  under  Zer.,  but  in  s'«  the  building  has  been  going  on 


THE  ARAMAIC  DOCUMENTS  21 

ever  since  the  time  of  Shes.  in  the  ist  year  of  Cy.  and  was  still  incom- 
plete. Now  this  last  passage  is  the  basis  of  the  Chr.'s  construction 
of  all  his  material  of  the  period,  Ezr.  i-6.  In  accord  with  this  theory  he 
makes  c.  3  but  a  futile  beginning  of  the  work,  and  by  leaving  out  dates 
would  make  it  appear  that  Zer.'s  work  was  done  in  the  time  of  Cj'. 
It  is  very  likely,  as  Torrey  contends,  that  he  regarded  this  Dar.  as 
Dar.  II  (423-404),  and  so  the  time  spent  on  building  the  temple  was 
a  very  long  one  indeed,  certainly  more  than  a  century.  The  Chr.,  in 
other  words,  had  a  very  misleading  source  here,  but  he  fell  into  the 
trap,  and  made  a  mess  of  his  good  material  accordingly. 

Kost.  has  tried  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  contradictory  statements 
by  assuming  that  there  are,  in  fact,  two  original  stories  which  have  been 
woven  together  and  worked  over  by  the  Chr.  or  an  earlier  compiler.  This 
dissection  leaves  in  one  part,  A,  s'-'"  6^-"  (exc.  "'',  which  with  "-"  he 
ascribes  to  the  Chr.),  and  in  the  other,  B,  5"-''  6^-  ^-^  (Wied.^^  «•).  But  the 
grave  diflSculties  of  this  piece  cannot  be  solved  in  this  way.  There  are 
no  linguistic  or  other  marks  to  support  such  an  arbitrary  analysis. 
The  fact  is  that  the  whole  piece  is  Jewish  to  the  core.  Tattenai  and 
his  fellows,  in  their  letter  to  the  Pers.  king,  really  plead  the  cause  of  the 
Jews,  and  Dar.  goes  even  beyond  Cy.  in  his  generosity  toward  the 
temple. 

Torrey  holds  now  that  4'-6'=  was  incorporated  bodily  by  the  Chr., 
though  he  formerly  held  that  4=^  was  the  Chr.'s  connecting  link  (ES.'*'  '■; 
cf.  Comp. '  ff).  I  am  unable  to  follow  Torrey  in  his  change  of  opinion. 
Had  one  author  written  the  whole  piece,  he  would  hardly  have  been 
entirely  silent  in  two  whole  c.  about  the  important  letters  in  4'-",  and 
Tattenai  could  hardly  have  been  ignorant  of  Art.'s  decree.  Doubt- 
less "Artaxerxes"  was  inserted  in  6'^  to  make  the  two  pieces  go  better 
together. 

And  yet  the  piece  in  its  original  form  was  doubtless  a  sincere  at- 
tempt of  some  devout  Jew,  living  very  long  after  the  event,  to  describe 
the  manner  in  which  the  temple  was  rebuilt.  He  was  doubtless  igno- 
rant of  other  sources,  and  could  hardly  have  been  familiar  with  oflScial 
documents  or  he  would  not  have  put  such  a  pathetic  Jewish  plea  as 
S^-i'  into  the  letter  of  a  Pers.  official.  The  passage  is  eloquent  of  the 
tribulations  of  the  poor  Jews,  and  doubtless  the  writer  expressed  some 
true  sentiments,  however  ill-informed  he  was  of  the  history. 

(3)  Concerning  Art.'s  grant  to  Ezr.  y^---^  little  need  be  said.  In  the 
notes  on  the  passage,  I  have  shown  that  the  letter  as  a  whole  is  appar- 
ently incompatible  with  Ezra's  work  so  far  as  we  know  it.  We  are 
forced  to  conclude  that  if  Ezra  had  any  authority  from  Art.  it  must 
have  been  what  is  contained  in  the  first  part  of  the  letter  (vv.  '^-s'),  and 
the  rest  is  an  amplification  by  one  who  exaggerated  Ezra's  mission 
more  than  even  the  Chr.  did. 

But  there  is  no  suflScient  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Chr.  really  found  it 


2  2  INTRODUCTION 

as  a  source.  The  fact  that  he  composed  an  intr.  in  Heb.  (71')  confirms 
that  opinion.  Moreover,  the  Chr.  would  not  have  composed  a  letter 
giving  Ezra  powers  which  even  the  Chr.  himself  never  permits  him 
to  use. 

An  effort  has  been  made  to  fix  the  date  of  the  composition  of  these 
Aram,  documents  from  the  language.  Torrey  has  given  considerable 
attention  to  this  matter  (ES."'-'"),  and  reaches  a  very  positive  opinion. 
He  asserts  that  the  Aram,  of  Dn.  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  our 
documents,  and  Dn.  is  assigned  to  the  Gk.  period.  The  whole  of  these 
sources  are  placed  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  B.C.  from  linguis- 
tic considerations.  This  result  is  confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  the 
Aram,  papyri  in  Egypt,  which  belong  to  the  fifth  century  B.C.  An 
examination  of  some  of  these  papyri  is  made,  and  the  conclusion 
reached  that  their  language  is  much  earlier  than  that  of  the  docu- 
ments in  Ezr. 

Other  scholars  have  held  different  opinions.  Sachau,  in  his  earliest 
work,  Drei.  Aram.  Pap.  1907,  asserted  that  the  Aram,  of  the  papyri 
was  identical  with  that  of  the  Biblical  documents,  and  he  has  said 
nothing  to  the  contrary  in  his  latest  and  largest  contribution,  Aram. 
Pap.  u.  Osl.  1911.  Sayce  and  Cowley  maintained  essentially  the 
same  position.  My  own  somewhat  meagre  examination  of  the  papyri 
makes  me  feel  that  their  language  and  expressions  are  very  like  the 
B.  Aram. 

Torrey  has  pointed  out  some  clear  differences  in  usage,  but  he  may 
have  drawn  too  big  a  conclusion  from  his  premises.  The  papyri  were 
never  copied,  but  are  preserved  in  their  original  form,  while  our  docu- 
ments were  copied  hundreds  of  times,  and  are  found  in  living  books. 
It  would  be  almost  inevitable,  therefore,  that  a  certain  modernisation 
would  result.  The  archaic  relative  m,  e.  g.,  would  easily  become  the 
common  ii.  Then  again  we  must  admit  that  the  language  of  peo- 
ple of  the  same  blood,  but  living  long  apart,  tends  to  differ.  Lowell 
showed  that  many  Americanisms  were  simply  survivals  of  the  language 
of  Shakespeare.  The  Jews  in  Elephantine  were  doubtless  the  suc- 
cessors of  those  who  migrated  to  that  land  soon  after  the  fall  of  Jerus., 
586  B.C.  The  Jews  who  wrote  these  stories  had  prob.  come  from 
Bab.,  certainly  not  from  Egypt.  The  two  bodies  of  Jews  had  lived 
apart  for  more  than  a  century  before  these  documents  could  have  been 
written.  There  seems  no  adequate  grounds  for  denying  that  these 
records  may  belong  to  the  fifth  century,  even  if  it  is  to  be  confessed  that 
there  is  little  evidence  to  support  that  date.  Then  again  it  is  shown 
in  the  critical  notes  that  many  peculiar  words  are  common  to  the  two 
sources  and  are  used  in  precisely  the  same  way. 


TIIE  HEBREW   SOURCES  23 


(4)    The  Hebrew  Sources. 

It  is  held  by  some  modern  scholars  that  all  of  our  books,  save 
the  parts  enumerated  above,  viz.,  N.,  E.,  and  the  Aramaic 
documents,  were  composed  by  the  Chronicler.  That  conten- 
tion cannot  be  maintained  unless  we  adopt  the  old  device, 
worked  so  liberally  in  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  fall 
back  on  a  Chronicler,  Chronicler  ^  Chronicler  2,  and  so  on  as 
far  as  necessary.  An  adequate  textual  criticism  makes  impos- 
sible the  verdict  that  the  Chronicler  wrote  all  of  these  books, 
outside  of  the  sources  previously  considered. 

It  is  agreed,  however,  that  the  Chr.  is  the  compiler  of  the  books  in  their 
present  form.  He  could  not  then  be  the  author  of  Ezr.  2'">-j^^,  for,  as 
shown  in  detail  in  the  notes,  this  piece  has  been  subjected  to  such  sweep- 
ing revision  that  its  original  purport  is  quite  lost.  The  Chr.  did  the 
rewriting  to  make  the  stubborn  piece  fit  his  theory  of  the  history,  and 
therefore  he  had  before  him  an  original  Heb.  story  of  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple  by  Zer.  and  Jes.,  which  harmonises  perfectly  with  the  in- 
formation we  have  in  Hg.  and  Zc. 

It  seems  further  necessary  to  analyse  Ezr.  i .  Every  time  I  read  the 
chapter  I  feel  strongly  that  it  is  not  all  from  the  same  hand.  A  part 
of  it  is  smooth  and  simple,  esp.  when  correction  is  made  in  the  text, 
and  a  part  of  it  rough  and  disjointed.  The  part  which  I  venture  to 
assign  to  a  Heb.  source,  used  by  the  Chr.,  is  vv.  ^-*-  '  '■  '"'.  These  vv. 
make  a  complete  and  consistent  story  in  themselves,  and  the  other 
vv.  have  all  the  earmarks  of  the  embellishments  which  the  Chr.  loved 
to  interject  into  his  narrative. 

Whether  the  Chr.  is  the  author  of  the  Ezra  story  in  Ezr.  10,  Ne.  8  is 
difficult  to  determine.  It  is  possible  that  he  had  some  memoirs  which 
he  rewrote.  It  is  certainly  possible  that  he  composed  the  whole,  esp. 
as  the  Ezra  story  so  far  as  we  know  ends  with  Ne.  8'-  »■■  ■'. 

In  Ne.  10,  which,  contrary  to  the  usual  opinion,  has  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  Ezra,  we  have  a  piece  quite  out  of  place,  and  for  that 
reason  it  was  prob.  in  existence  before  the  Chr.  He  would  hardly 
have  composed  a  passage  so  out  of  harmony  with  its  setting;  but  in 
his  method  of  editing  and  compiling  he  might  easily  have  used  it  as 
he  did  because  he  wanted  to  make  it  tell  a  different  story  from  what 
it  does.  An  agreement  of  the  people  to  do  certain  specific  things  is 
ridiculous  after  the  law  had  been  given  and  the  people  were  sworn  to 
obey  it.  Personal  agreements  have  nothing  to  do  with  a  code  like 
that  in  the  Pentateuch. 


24  INTRODUCTION 


(5)  The  Lists. 

There  is  little  left  but  the  lists  of  names.  These  occupy  a 
liberal  space;  Ezr.  2  (=  Ne.  f-'-)  S^-^^  ioi«-«  Ne.  3I-32  lo^-z* 
jj4-36  12I-26  are  practically  nothing  else.  These  hsts  are  by 
many  scholars  confidently  attributed  to  the  Chronicler.  Now, 
that  the  Chronicler  was  fond  of  such  lists  is  beyond  a  doubt. 
The  way  he  sets  forth  the  history  down  to  David  (i  Ch.  1-9) 
is  sufficient  evidence.  He  was  an  expert  in  genealogies.  But 
it  does  not  follow  that  he  composed  all  the  lists. 

Lists  of  names  were  common  in  the  postex.  period,  and  now  we  have 
long  lists  of  Jewish  names  from  Egypt  (Sachau,  ra/e/w,"-").  It  is  hard 
to  believe  that  any  one  person  composed  all  of  these  lists,  for  while  there 
are  striking  resemblances,  there  are  also  many  differences;  note  esp. 
the  peculiar  use  of  "males"  in  the  list  of  Ezra's  company  (Ezr.  S'-'O- 
It  is,  at  all  events,  highly  prob.  that  the  Chr.  merely  incorporated 
lists  which  he  found  to  his  hand. 

The  real  work  of  the  Chr.  in  these  books  consists,  therefore,  of  edit- 
ing and  compihng.  There  is  not  a  great  deal  which  can  be  proved 
to  come  from  his  pen;  and  yet  there  is  very  little  that  he  has  not 
retouched  ace.  to  his  own  ideas.  The  work  of  compilation  was  badly 
done,  but  fortunately  there  is  enough  guidance  for  the  revision  of  the 
Chr.'s  blundering  work  and  for  bringing  the  various  parts  into  their 
right  relations. 

§  9.      THE    SAMARITAN    OPPOSITION. 

The  restoration  of  Jerusalem  was  greatly  hindered  by  the 
interference  of  other  peoples  who  were  living  as  neighbours  to 
the  Jews.  And  yet  the  real  extent  and  character  of  this  oppo- 
sition has  been  greatly  misunderstood,  owing  largely  to  the 
confusion  of  the  text  wrought  by  the  compiler.  The  fact  is 
that  save  in  one  brief  and  obscure  passage  (Ezr.  4^"^)  there  is 
no  hint  of  an  attempt  of  any  one  to  place  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  the  Jews  until  the  time  of  Artaxerxes. 

The  corrupt  passage  in  Ezr.  3',  when  properly  corrected  (v.  notes), 
shows  an  entirely  friendly  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Jews'  neigh- 
bours.   In  Ezr.  41-'  the  Sam.,  so  far  from  desiring  to  impede  the  build- 


THE   SAMARITAN  OPPOSITION  25 

ing  of  the  temple,  sincerely  ofifer  their  aid  in  the  work.  Even  if  we 
accept  Ezr.  5/.,  there  is  still  no  opposition.  Tattenai  and  his  asso- 
ciates betray  no  hostility  and  accept  the  statement  of  the  leaders  that 
they  had  authority  from  Cy.  and  did  not  attempt  to  secure  a  cessation 
of  the  building  operations,  but  distinctly  allowed  them  to  continue 
(S*),  while  their  report  and  inquiry  went  to  the  Pers.  court. 

There  is,  indeed,  the  perplexing  passage  Ezr.  4<-»  which  I  have  placed 
in  the  time  of  Xerxes,  but  it  is  too  obscure  and  uncertain  to  throw  much 
light  on  our  problem.  At  most  it  is  a  very  vague  and  general  state- 
ment about  some  opposition  from  foreigners.  Vv.  *■ «  might  be  from 
the  Chr.'s  hand,  but  that  would  leave  v. »  in  rather  a  sorry  state,  for  it 
is  inconceivable  that  the  Chr.  should  have  written  that  much  and  no 
more  about  the  reign  of  Xerxes. 

When  we  come  to  the  reign  of  Art.  there  is  plenty  of  material  to  show 
that  this  hostility  was  very  marked.  The  sources  of  our  information 
are  two,  and  both  unquestionably  authentic:  the  Art.  correspondence 
(Ezr.  4'-"»)  and  N.  The  complainants  against  the  Jews  in  the  former 
document  were  certainly  the  Sam.  They  describe  themselves  as  the 
colonists  whom  Asnappar — certainly  some  Assyrian  king — had  brought 
to  Sam.  The  hostility  of  these  people  is  apparent.  They  came  to 
Jerus.  on  no  mission  of  friendliness  or  inquiry,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
point  out  to  the  king  that  the  accomplishment  of  the  Jews'  purpose 
spells  disaster  to  the  Pers.  dominions  in  the  west.  Their  intense  oppo- 
sition was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  in  their  time  were  engaged  in 
the  building  of  the  walls,  the  same  cause  that  provoked  the  fierce 
enmity  toward  Neh. 

While  the  Jews  were  engaged  in  restoring  the  temple,  there  was  no 
trouble  with  their  neighbours,  but  the  moment  they  attack  the  walls, 
opposition  breaks  out.  Naturally,  for  the  building  of  the  temple  had 
no  poUtical  significance.  The  Pers.  officials  kept  their  hands  o£f  as 
long  as  the  Jews  were  dealing  with  purely  religious  institutions.  But 
a  city  enclosed  by  a  wall  created  another  situation,  for  a  walled  city 
could  cause  any  amount  of  trouble  to  the  officers  of  the  satrapy  of 
which  it  was  a  part. 

This  consideration  confirms  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  (Ezr. 
4"').  Torrey  puts  a  strange  construction  on  the  complaint,  alleging 
that  Rehum  et  al.  mention  the  building  of  the  city  rather  than  the 
temple  in  order  to  reinforce  their  plea  for  interference,  the  complain- 
ants thus  making  a  false  report  of  the  actual  conditions.  As  there  is 
otherwise  not  a  shred  of  evidence  of  any  opposition  to  the  building  of 
the  temple,  and  as  the  Sam.  used  every  possible  efifort  to  prevent  the 
building  of  the  walls,  the  right  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  fixed 
beyond  reasonable  doubt. 

Neh.'s  story  of  the  building  of  the  walls  is  contained  in  Ne.  a'"-"  3>»- 
^17  6i_7i»,    As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  sections,  comprising  almost  all  of 


26  INTRODUCTION 

N.  save  the  story  of  his  leave  of  absence  and  his  reforms,  have  as  their 
true  subject  the  efforts  of  the  enemy  to  stop  Neh.'s  operations. 

Three  men  stand  out  as  the  leaders  of  this  opposition,  Sanb.  the 
Horonite,  To.  the  Ammonite  slave,  and  Geshem  (or  Gashmu)  the 
Arabian.  In  every  case  exc.  6^^,  where  To.  is  prob.  a  gl.,  Sanb.  stands 
first,  and  while  in  some  sections  Geshem  is  not  named  (2"'  41),  and  in 
another  To.  fails  (6^),  Sanb.  always  occurs,  twice  alone  (3"  6^).  It  is 
worth  our  while  to  try  to  discover  who  this  arch-enemy  of  Neh.  was. 

Torrey  thinks  we  have  a  choice  between  two,  one  of  whom  is  named 
by  Jos.  as  the  governor  of  Sam.  at  the  time  of  the  Sam.  schism  (Ant. 
xi,  8)  about  335  b.c.  If  Neh.'s  date  were  the  reign  of  Art.  II,  404-358 
B.C.,  then  in  384,  when  Neh.  would  come  to  Jerus.  fifty  years  before, 
Sanb.  might  have  been  a  young  man,  provided  he  was  sufficiently  aged 
at  the  time  in  which  Jos.  places  him.  But  this  date  for  Neh.  is  out  of 
the  question,  and  as  we  have  the  person  in  exactly  the  period  required 
we  need  waste  no  time  in  vague  possibilities. 

In  Pap.  I  from  Elephantine,  1.=',  we  find  "  Delaiah  and  Shelemaiah 
the  sons  of  Sanb.  the  governor  of  Sam."  The  correspondents  assert 
that  they  had  sent  a  letter  to  these  men,  detailing  all  the  information 
contained  in  the  letter  to  Bagohi  about  the  temple  in  Jeb.  Sachau 
believes  that  Sanb.  was  still  living,  though  Buhl  asserts  that  he  was 
certainly  dead  {Aram.  Pap.*^).  Sachau's  argument  is  convincing,  al- 
though the  point  is  immaterial.  It  suffices  to  assume,  however,  that 
Sanb.  was  an  old  man,  and  that  his  sons  had  succeeded  him,  or  were  the 
real  administrators  of  the  governorship.  As  this  was  in  407  B.C.,  thirty- 
seven  years  earlier,  444  B.C.,  the  date  of  Neh.,  Sanb.  would  have  been 
about  thirty-five,  in  the  very  prime  of  life.  This  is  undoubtedly  the 
enemy  of  Neh. 

As  his  sons  both  bear  Jewish  names,  Sachau  argues  that  Sanb.,  in 
spite  of  his  Bab.  name,  was  a  Hebrew.  With  this  position  Torrey  is 
agreed,  but  deems  it  probable  that  the  name  is  Heb.  as  well  as  the 
man  (ES.^s.  330). 

Neh.  never  calls  him  the  governor  of  Sam.,  but  still  that  office  is  quite 
consistent  with  other  statements  in  the  memoirs.  Sanb.  appears  sup- 
ported by  the  "army  of  Sam."  (Ne.  3'^,  which  Torrey  regards  as  a 
note  by  the  Chr.  (ES."0)  but  he  admits  that  Sanb.  comes  forth  with  an 
army  in  a  suitable  place  (42).  The  rendezvous  proposed  by  Sanb.  in 
the  plain  of  Ono  (6^)  was,  roughly,  midway  between  Jerus.  and  Sam. 
It  is  quite  impossible,  were  Sanb.  a  private  citizen,  that  he  should  act 
with  such  a  high  hand  toward  a  governor  of  Judah,  an  appointee  of 
the  Pers.  king.  Neh.,  however,  never  gives  him  other  designation 
than  "  the  Horonite,"  explained  by  Torrey  as  marking  his  contempt. 
Winckler,  followed  cautiously  by  Berth.,  connects  the  appellative  with 
Horonaim  (Is.  15')  in  Moab,  and  makes  Sanb.  a  Horonite  sheik.  The 
Elephantine  letters  dispose  of  that  contention,  and  we  must  connect 


THE   SAMARITAN  OPPOSITION  27 

the  term  with  Beth-horon,  a  town  on  the  border  of  Sam.  (Jos.  i6'- »; 
c/.  Montgomery,  Samaritans, ^^),  of  which  place  Sanb.  might  be  a  na- 
tive and  still  governor  of  Sam.  In  what  respect  the  appellative  con- 
tained a  note  of  contempt  in  Neh.'s  time  is  not  known. 

The  letter  shows  that  the  Jewish  colonists  in  Elephantine  looked  upon 
the  sons  of  Sanb.  as  friends  who  would  be  likely  to  assist  their  plea 
for  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  in  their  garrison.  This  could  not  have 
been  very  long  after  Neh.'s  second  administration,  and  may  seem  to 
raise  a  doubt  about  the  above  identification.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  our 
sources  show  that,  violently  as  Sanb.  and  others  struggled  against  the 
rebuilding  of  the  walls,  and  consequently  against  Neh.  as  the  leader 
of  that  great  work,  there  were  friendly  relations  maintained  by  these 
foes  with  some  prominent  persons  in  Jerus.  Jehohanan,  the  high 
priest  in  407,  or  one  of  his  brothers,  had  married  a  daughter  of  Sanb. 
(Ne.  13^');  correspondence  was  conducted  between  To.  and  the  nobles 
of  Judah  (61');  and  these  were  allied  to  him  by  marriage  and  agree- 
ments; Sanb.  was  able  to  hire  a  prophet  to  mislead  the  governor  (6^-). 
Neh.'s  troubles  were,  in  fact,  greatly  augmented  by  the  disaffection 
of  some  of  the  leaders  in  Jerus.  Again  the  Jewish  colonists  in  Jeb 
show  that  they  are  not  very  well  informed  about  affairs  in  the  world 
outside,  and  they  may  have  been  ignorant  of  Sanb.'s  intrigues  against 
their  fellow-Israehte.  Finally,  Sanb.'s  sons,  with  their  good  Heb. 
names,  may  not  have  shared  their  father's  hostility,  esp.  at  a  time 
when  the  wall  had  long  been  an  accomplished  fact. 

To  account  for  this  hostility  there  is  no  need  to  go  back  to  the 
repulse  of  the  Sam.'s  offer  to  aid  in  building  the  temple  (Ezr.  4'-0, 
still  less  to  the  later  bitter  feud  between  the  Sam.  and  the  Jews.  As 
Montgomery  has  pointed  out  in  his  able  work  on  the  Sam.  ("),  the 
opposition  was  political,  not  religious.  In  the  time  of  Neh.  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Sam.  toward  the  Jews  was  exactly  what  the  relations  of 
the  northern  kingdom,  the  predecessors  of  the  Sam.,  had  always  been 
to  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  The  exile,  with  the  colonising  and  the 
return,  had  not  materially  altered  the  conditions.  The  Sam.  and 
Jews  could  no  more  be  one  people  than  Ephraim  and  Judah  could  long 
be  one  state.  As  shown  above,  the  rival  people  picked  no  quarrel 
with  their  southern  neighbours  as  long  as  they  were  using  their  efforts 
to  build  up  their  ecclesiastical  institutions.  The  temple  would  not 
interfere  with  the  political  supremacy  of  the  north.  But  the  building 
of  the  walls  was  another  matter.  Once  let  Jerus.  be  made  impreg- 
nable again,  as  it  had  been  in  the  days  of  old,  and  the  balance  of  power 
would  be  almost  certain  to  move  from  the  north  to  the  south.  The 
Sam.  would  have  been  blind,  indeed,  had  they  not  seen  the  significance 
of  the  movement,  and  foolish,  indeed,  if  they  had  not  used  every  pos- 
sible means  to  prevent  it. 

Their  first  attempt  succeeded.     They  frightened  the  weak  Art.  and 


28  INTRODUCTION 

cowed  the  Jews  who  under  some  unknown  inspiration  and  leadership 
had  started  the  work.  Their  second  attempt  failed,  and  the  cause  of 
their  failure  was  the  presence  of  a  personality  against  whom  their 
utmost  struggles  were  in  vain. 

§   lO.      THE    DATE    OF    EZRA's    MISSION. 

It  has  been  assumed  in  the  preceding  pages  that  Ezra  belongs 
to  a  later  period  than  Nehemiah.  That  conclusion  seems  to 
me  inevitable.  It  is  true  that  the  editor  of  the  books  thought 
otherwise.  His  placing  of  Ezr.  7-10  before  Ne.  i  shows  that 
the  Artaxerxes  who  authorised  Ezra's  administration  was,  in 
his  view,  the  same  as  the  Artaxerxes  who  appointed  Nehemiah 
to  be  governor  of  Judah,  and  his  placing  of  the  promulgation 
of  the  law  by  Ezra  (Ne.  S^-^^)  in  the  midst  of  Nehemiah's  rule 
shows  his  belief  that  they  were  contemporaries.  Further  to 
support  his  view,  he  has  introduced  Nehemiah  in  the  story  of 
the  reading  of  the  law  (Ne.  8^).  He  also  drags  Ezra's  name 
into  the  story  of  the  dedication  of  the  walls  (Ne.  12^^),  but  it  is 
a  manifest  gloss.  In  spite  of  the  dissimilarity  of  their  work, 
these  two  leaders  could  not  be  contemporaries. 

For  Art.  would  scarcely  send  two  men  to  Judah  at  the  same  time, 
both  clothed  with  similar  powers.  It  would  be  strange,  were  Ezra  such 
a  prominent  figure  in  Jerus.,  that  there  is  no  genuine  reference  to  him 
in  Neh.'s  story.  Neh.  in  his  second  administration  was  the  first  to 
discover  mixed  marriages  and  to  apply  a  sharp  remedy.  Such  a  con- 
dition would  not  arise  naturally  after  the  wholesale  dissolution  as  de- 
scribed in  Ezr.  9  /.  Neh.'s  reforms,  as  narrated  in  c.  13,  would  be 
strange  after  Ezra,  but  are  very  natural  before  his  time.  It  is  incon- 
ceivable that  the  Lev.  should  be  driven  to  work  in  the  fields  directly 
after  Ezra's  mission,  or  even  possibly  while  it  lasted.  The  measures 
Neh.  took  for  the  support  of  the  temple  show  that  his  action  could  not 
have  been  preceded  by  the  rule  of  a  scribe-priest  with  ample  authority 
to  enforce  the  law.  Moreover,  the  Jerus.  of  Neh.'s  time  was  a  deso- 
lation, without  walls  or  houses  or  people  (;<).  Ezra's  whole  career 
is  spent  in  the  holy  city,  and  there  appears  to  have  been  plenty  of 
houses  and  people  in  his  time. 

There  is  the  evidence  of  Esd.  which  connects  Ne.  7'— 8"  directly 
with  Ezr.  10,  thus  bringing  the  Ezra  story  together.  There  is  nothing 
about  Neh.'s  work  in  this  the  earliest  edition  of  our  books.  Jos.  has  a 
section  dealing  with  Neh.'s  administration  {AhL  xi,  5,  6-8).     Before 


THE  DATE   OF   EZRA  S   MISSION  29 

he  takes  up  the  story  of  Nch.  he  describes  the  death  of  Ezra  at  an  ad- 
vanced age  (ib.  §  5).  Jos.  follows  Esd.  as  his  authority,  so  that  the 
testimony  is  emphatic  on  this  negative  point — that  Ezra  and  Neh. 
were  not  contemporaries.  Further  Jos.  says  that  both  Ezra  and  Neh. 
flourished  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes  (485-464),  and  he  relates  that  the 
death  of  Joakim  the  high  pr.  took  place  at  about  the  same  time  as 
that  of  Ezra.  Now  Joakim  was  the  son  of  Jes.  (Ne.  121"),  and  he  might 
have  ruled  in  the  time  of  Xerxes,  but  he  could  hardly  survive  till  the 
reign  of  Art.  As  Jos.  followed  his  sources  pretty  closely,  it  is  perfectly 
possible  that  the  date  of  Ezra  in  the  original  text  of  Esd.  was  the  reign 
of  Xerxes,  and  that  Art.  is  one  of  the  many  modifications  in  that  text 
based  on  MT.  As  the  version  of  Esd.  lost  favour  largely  owing  to 
Jer.'s  great  influence  (cf.  ES."),  there  was  an  evident  effort  to  re- 
cover its  lost  prestige  by  eliminating  its  variations  from  MT.  Such 
a  date  for  Ezra  is  not  impossible,  esp.  when  the  scope  of  his  mission 
is  properly  limited.  He  must  be  separated  from  Neh.  by  a  consider- 
able space  of  time. 

Such  evidence  as  we  have  in  our  sources,  however,  points  to  the 
conclusion  that  Ezra  followed  Neh.     To  that  evidence  we  now  turn. 

In  Ezra's  prayer  he  refers  to  God's  grace  as  manifested  before  his 
time,  and  among  other  evidences  cites  "  the  giving  of  a  wall  [in  Judah 
and]  in  Jerus."  (Ezr.  9').  As  shown  in  the  notes,  the  reference  can 
only  be  to  the  wall  built  by  Neh.  We  are  told  that  Ezra  went  into 
the  chamber  of  Jehohanan  the  son  of  Eliashib  to  spend  the  night  (Ezr. 
lo^.  The  succession  of  high  pr.  in  Ne.  12^2  shows  that  Jehohanan 
is  identical  with  Jonathan  (12")  and  that  he  was  the  grandson  of 
Eliashib  (so  Sta.  Gesch.  ii,^").  Now  as  Eliashib  was  a  contempo- 
rary of  Neh.,  Ezra  is  two  generations  later,  or  exactly  where  he  be- 
longs, in  the  reign  of  Art.  II.  Neh.'s  administration  began  in  444, 
and  Ezra's  in  397  or  later.  Finally  in  Ne.  12=5  we  have  the  order  "  Neh. 
the  governor  and  Ezra  the  pr.,  the  scribe,"  and  these  are  not  contem- 
poraries, but  belong  to  successive  periods.  It  does  not  help,  there- 
fore, to  correct  the  text  of  Ezr.  7',  as  proposed  by  We.  (GejcA."''°), 
reading  27th  instead  of  7th.  Indeed,  that  would  make  matters  worse, 
for  as  Neh.  was  governor  of  Judah  from  the  20th  to  the  3 2d  years  of 
Art.,  we  should  then  have  Ezra  coming  up  in  the  very  midst  of  Neh.'s 
rule.     It  is  certainly  simpler  to  suppose  that  the  reference  is  to  Art.  II. 

These  considerations  fix  the  date  of  Neh.  as  that  of  the  reign  of 
Art.  I  (Longimanus),  464-424.  Torrey  insists  that  "the  tradition  rep- 
resented by  the  Aram,  document  and  the  Chr."  places  Neh.'s  work  in 
the  reign  of  Art.  II  (Mnemon),  404-358  B.C.,  and  says  that  we  have 
no  means  of  determining  which  Art.  was  the  benefactor  of  Neh. 
{Comp.'^y  ES."0-  This  conclusion  comes  from  taking  Chr.'s  arrange- 
ment too  seriously.  Ezra  could  hardly  have  been  later  than  Art.  II, 
and  I  have  shown  that  he  followed  Neh.     Moreover,  Neh.  must  have 


30  INTRODUCTION 

been  familiar  with  Pers.  history.  He  could  hardly  have  held  high 
place  at  the  court  without  knowing  the  succession  of  the  Pers.  kings. 
If  his  benefactor  had  been  preceded  shortly  before  by  a  king  of  the 
same  name,  he  would  in  all  probability  have  taken  pains  to  specify 
the  later  Art.,  as  Jos.  does,  toO  aXkou  ApTasePTo^J  (Ant.  Ed.  Niese, 
iiij^of-,  quoted  by  Sachau,'). 

This  date  has  received  strong  confirmation  from  the  Eleph.  pap. 
Jehohanan  was  high  pr.  at  Jerus.  in  407  B.C.  As  he  was  the  grand- 
son of  Eliashib,  a  contemporary  of  Neh.  {v.  s.),  Neh.  must  have 
preceded  this  time.  This  argument  has  been  elaborated  by  Sachau 
("■).  Another  notice  from  the  same  letter  supports  the  conclusion. 
Sanb.'s  sons  were  prominent  men  in  Sam.  at  the  date  given  above, 
407  B.C.  As  this  person  is  to  be  identified  with  Neh.'s  persistent 
foe,  Sanb.,  if  still  living,  must  have  been  a  fairly  old  man,  so  that 
his  prime  of  life  would  exactly  coincide  with  the  date  of  Neh.  Arnold 
has  added  confirmation  of  this  date  from  the  presence  of  a  Hananijah, 
as  a  high  Pers.  official  in  Egypt,  and  who  was  probably  the  same  as 
Hanani,  the  brother  of  Neh.  (JBL.  i9i2,3«). 

Taking  all  the  evidence  there  is  no  longer  room  for  the  slightest  doubt 
that  the  protector  of  Neh.  was  Art.  Longimanus.  In  his  later  work 
Torrey  now  admits  the  probability  of  this  date,  but  he  will  go  no 
further  (ES.""-  "6.  335). 

§    II.      THE    HISTORY    OF    THE    PERSIAN    PERIOD. 

Outside  of  some  prophetic  passages  and  Psalms,  which  can- 
not always  be  positively  dated,  our  books  contain  all  the  infor- 
mation we  have  about  the  historical  events  of  the  important 
Persian  period,  538-332  B.C.,  and  so  slightly  more  than  two 
centuries.  If  every  word  of  Ezr.-Ne.  were  authentic,  our 
knowledge  would  be  meagre,  for  we  have  practically  nothing 
until  we  reach  the  reign  of  Darius  I,  521-485,  and  but  a  brief 
note,  which  yields  little  information,  from  the  reign  of  the 
famous  Xerxes,  485-464.  From  the  completion  of  the  temple, 
about  515  B.C.,  until  the  advent  of  Nehemiah,  444  B.C.,  there  is 
a  long  period,  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century,  about  the 
history  of  which  we  have  but  slight  knowledge. 

A  characteristic  of  our  books  is  that  they  give  us  information  about 
a  very  few  specific  events,  each  of  which  occupies  but  a  short  time,  and 
then  a  great  gap  is  left.  Thus  Ezr.  3-6  (exc.  4*--^)  contains  the  story 
of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  Ne.  1-6  the  story  of  the  building  of  the 


THE  HISTORY  3 1 

walls,  Ezr.  7-10  the  dissolution  of  mixed  marriages.  And  there  is  no 
attempt  to  tell  what  happened  in  the  intervals. 

Since  Kost.'s  arraignment,  however,  there  has  been  a  tendency  to 
discredit  a  large  part  of  the  scanty  material  contained  in  our  books, 
so  that  for  some  scholars  the  Pers.  period  is  essentially  a  blank.  Those 
who  hold  this  position  regret  the  state  of  affairs.  Thus  Torrey  says 
finely:  "We  are  in  the  direst  need  of  information  as  to  the  history  of 
the  Jews  in  the  Pers.  period,  and  every  scrap  of  material  that  promises 
help  ought  to  be  treasured  and  put  to  use.  But  no  extremity  of  need 
can  outweigh  the  obligation  to  follow  the  evidence"  (ES.'").  With 
this  statement  every  one  will  heartily  agree.  It  is  far  better  to  have 
no  knowledge  of  the  period  than  false  knowledge.  It  is  necessary  to 
be  on  one's  guard  lest  the  wish  should  be  father  to  the  thought.  But 
it  is  equally  necessary  to  be  on  one's  guard  in  another  direction,  and 
after  years  of  studying  these  books,  I  am  convinced  that  some  students 
have  used  insufficient  caution.  Some  portions  of  these  books  must 
be  rejected  as  historical  sources,  but  in  the  process  of  rejection  it  is 
easy  to  throw  away  the  good  with  the  bad.  I  am  convinced  that 
some  of  the  poverty  of  information  which  Torrey  laments  is  due  to  an 
indiscriminate  criticism  in  which  authentic  sources  have  gone  by  the 
board. 

The  method  is  a  very  simple  one.  A  passage  shows  certain  notes  of 
the  Chr.;  it  is  immediately  ascribed  to  him  as  a  whole;  it  is  a  fundamen- 
tal principle  that  the  Chr.  never  wrote  history  correctly,  but  is  really 
a  novelist,  and  all  his  work  is  worthless.  As  N.,  pruned  to  the  last 
degree,  is  all  that  escaped  his  hand,  barring  some  late  and  romantic 
Aram,  documents,  pretty  nearly  all  of  our  sources  are  cast  aside.  The 
case  does  not  seem  to  me  so  desperate  by  any  means.  Much  of  the 
material  frequently  labelled  Chr.  was  not  his  composition,  and  even 
when  it  is  there  is  no  reason  to  distrust  it  on  that  ground  alone.  The 
Chr.  could,  indeed,  make  sad  havoc  of  history,  when  a  favourite  theory 
was  to  be  supported,  as  that  all  the  temple  ritual  goes  back  to  David; 
but  in  the  Pers.  period  there  is  much  in  regard  to  which  he  had  no 
theory  that  would  control  his  writing  of  history. 

The  Chr.'s  theory  of  the  history  of  the  period  may  be  stated  briefly 
thus.  He  puts  all  the  events  described  in  Ezr.  1-4^  in  the  reign  of 
Cy.  The  statement  in  4=  that  the  builders  were  frustrated  "  all  the  days 
of  Cy.,  king  of  Persia,  even  until  the  reign  of  Dar.,  king  of  Persia," 
proves  that  conclusively.  That  he  supposed  Art.  to  have  reigned  be- 
tween Cy.  and  Dar.  is  the  only  possible  construction  to  be  placed  on 
the  position  of  the  Art.  letters  in  4'-24.  The  Chr.  then  held  that  Cy. 
allowed  the  Jews  to  go  from  Bab.  and  that  the  large  company  described 
in  2'-"  actually  returned  to  Judah  as  a  result.  He  held  that  they 
built  the  altar  and  started  to  build  the  temple,  but  their  efforts  were 
checked  by  the  opposition  of  the  neighbouring  foreigners,  and  finally 


32  INTRODUCTION 

stopped  by  the  decree  of  Art.  The  building  was  resumed  under  the 
urging  of  the  prophets  Hg.  and  Zc.  in  the  2d  year  of  Dar.,  and  by 
this  king's  approval  carried  on  to  completion  in  that  king's  6th  year. 

Now  the  above  is  often  accepted  as  the  actual  course  of  events, 
as  they  are  described  in  Ezr.  1-6.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  sources  are 
not  consistent  with  any  such  theory.  The  Chr.  did,  indeed,  modify 
his  sources,  but  he  was  an  indifferent  editor,  and  did  not  eliminate  all 
the  traces  of  a  vastly  different  story.  His  theory  would  require  the 
once  widely  accepted  identification  of  Shes.  with  Zer.,  an  identification 
flatly  contradicted  in  the  Aram,  document,  where  Zer.  built  the  temple 
of  which  Shes.  had  laid  the  foundations  long  before  (s'O-  Moreover, 
it  is  Zer.,  not  Shes.,  who  comes  up  from  captivity  (2=),  and  it  is  he  who 
made  the  abortive  attempt  to  rebuild  the  temple  (3--'^),  and  it  was  he 
whose  work  was  interfered  with  by  the  foreigners  (4'-').  Moreover, 
the  passage  in  4''--*  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  building  of  the  temple. 

Again,  the  Chr.  makes  Ezra  come  to  Jerus.  in  the  7th  year  of  the 
same  Art.  in  the  20th  year  of  whose  reign  Neh.  appeared  in  Judah,  and 
the  latter  came  while  the  former  was  in  the  midst  of  his  labours.  Here 
again  the  sources  used  by  the  Chr.  do  not  bear  out  his  theory,  as  shown 
in  §  10. 

It  is  possible  to  reconstruct  the  history  on  the  basis  of  the  sources 
used  by  the  Chr.,  for,  as  indicated  above,  all  the  traces  of  the  true 
course  of  events  were  not  obliterated  by  his  sometimes  extensive  re- 
vision. In  parts  this  work  has  been  done  by  others,  though  in  some 
respects  incompletely.  But  there  does  not  exist  to  my  knowledge 
any  satisfactory  reconstruction  of  the  period  covered  by  Ezr.  1-6,  and 
this  is  the  part  in  which  my  results  show  the  greatest  divergence  from 
the  conclusions  of  other  students. 


The  history  can  best  be  considered  under  four  periods,  indi- 
cated by  the  reigns  of  the  Persian  kings. 


(i)   The  Reign  of  Cyrus — 559-529  B.C. 

There  is  a  wide  departure  at  the  outset  from  current  opinion 
in  the  limitations  set  for  the  material  bearing  on  this  reign  (for 
further  demonstration,  v.  i.  on  the  reign  of  Darius).  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  all  that  our  books  tell  us  about  this  period  is  con- 
tained in  Ezr.  i.  Stripped  of  the  Chronicler's  embellishments, 
vv.  ^-  ^  *•"",  which  really  furnish  no  historical  information, 
we  learn  from  vv.  *-''■  ^  '  ^^^,  that  in  the  ist  year  of  Cyrus's 


THE   REIGN   OF   CYRUS  33 

rule  in  Babylonia  he  issued  a  decree*  authorising  the  Jewish 
exiles  to  return  to  Jerusalem  and  rebuild  their  temple.  He 
restored  the  sacred  vessels  which  Nebuchadrezzar  had  taken 
from  the  temple,  giving  them  to  Sheshbazzar,  the  prince  of 
Judah,  by  whom,  in  company  with  a  caravan  of  returning  ex- 
iles, they  were  carried  to  Jerusalem. 

In  this  section  we  come  to  the  crux  of  the  historical  problem.  One 
of  the  most  startling  of  the  results  of  Kost.'s  criticism  was  his  assertion 
that  there  was  no  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Bab.  exile  until  the  time 
of  Ezra.  The  only  arguments  necessary  to  consider  here  are  two, 
the  fact  that  the  temple  was  first  begun  under  Dar.,  and  the  silence  of 
Hg.  and  Zc.  {Wied.^*  f).  Kost.  makes  a  fundamental  mistake  from 
his  misinterpretation  of  Ezr.  3.  He  begins  with  evidence  from  the 
prophets  just  named  that  the  temple  was  begun  in  the  time  of  Dar. 
As  Ezr.  38-13  ig  held  to  assert  that  the  building  was  started  under  Cy., 
this  passage  is  unhistorical.  Then  he  proceeds  to  demolish  Ezr.  3'-', 
and  c.  I  goes  down  in  the  ruin.  Now  we  shall  return  to  this  point 
later,  but  here  it  suffices  to  repeat  the  conclusion  demonstrated  later, 
that  Ezr.  3  describes  events  in  the  reign  of  Dar.,  not  of  Cy. 

Then  Kost.  argues  that  if  more  than  40,000  exiles  had  returned  in 
the  time  of  Cy.,  as  stated  in  Ezr.  2,  Hg.  and  Zc.  must  have  contained 
some  reference  to  this  stupendous  movement,  which  was  but  a  few 
years  before  their  time.  In  the  first  place,  Ezr.  2  does  hot  profess 
to  give  a  list  of  those  who  returned  with  Shes.  in  the  reign  of  Cy.,  but 
of  those  who  came  up  with  Zer.  and  others  in  the  time  of  Dar.  It  is 
only  in  Ne.  7=  that  this  record  is  designated  as  a  list  of  those  "who  came 
up  at  first,"  presumably  with  Shes.,  and  therefore  this  prefatory  note 
contradicts  the  statements  in  the  list  itself.  Kost.  seems  never  to  have 
noted  the  evidence  of  Esd.,  in  which  text  it  is  sufficiently  plain  that 
Ezr.  2  is  an  interpolation,  and  really  belongs  to  a  late  period,  and  where 
the  date  of  Dar.  is  fixed  by  the  place  in  which  the  list  is  interpolated. 
We  have  absolutely  no  hint  even  as  to  the  number  who  came  up  from 
Bab.  with  either  Shes.  or  Zer.  The  whole  number  of  both  companies 
may  have  comprised  but  a  few  hundred  persons. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  the  silence  of  the  two  prophets  of 
the  period  is  unimportant.  If  a  few  hundred  people  had  come  from 
exile,  their  presence  would  not  be  the  matter  of  supreme  moment. 
The  prophets  were  concerned  with  the  task  of  arousing  the  people  to 
restore  the  temple,  not  with  the  birthplace  of  their  audiences.    There 

•  We  may  note  the  wise  caution  of  Kue.,  and  realise  that  even  the  rejection  of  the  authen- 
ticity of  either  form  of  Cy.'s  decree  (Ezr.  i'*  6'-')  does  not  prove  that  there  was  no  return 
of  the  Jews  at  this  time  {Abh'^^). 


34  INTRODUCTION 

is  a  tradition  going  back  to  Dorotheus,  Epiphanius,  and  others  that 
Hg.  was  bom  in  Bab.  {Hg.  in  ICC.")-  Mitchell  assumes  that  Zc. 
came  from  Bab.,  with  his  father  Iddo  {op.  cit.^^,  and  see  note  on  Ne. 
ii2<).  If  these  prophets  were  themselves  returned  exiles,  it  is  natural 
that  they  should  not  refer  to  the  return  of  others.  The  fact  is  that 
these  prophets  really  tell  a  somewhat  different  story  from  that  extracted 
by  Kost. 

That  story  is  found  the  moment  we  search  for  the  occasion  of  these 
prophetic  utterances.  Why  was  it  that  just  in  this  2d  year  of  Dar. 
these  prophets  were  led  to  appeal  to  the  people  to  build  the  house 
of  Yahweh?  The  temple  had  already  been  in  ruins  for  nearly  seventy 
years.  On  Kost.'s  theory  the  work  of  rebuilding  might  just  as  well 
have  started  earlier.  There  must  have  been  some  movement  at  this 
particular  period  which  made  the  prophets  feel  that  the  moment  for 
action  had  come. 

The  prophecies  are  full  of  the  idea  of  a  new  era.  Yahweh  says:  "I 
am  returned  to  Jerus.  with  mercies"  (Zc.  I'O-  A  revival  of  prosperity 
is  to  mark  the  new  era.  The  advent  of  Zer.  as  the  governor  of  Judah 
best  explains  the  new  conditions  which  led  the  prophets  to  perceive 
the  God-given  opportunity.  This  person  bulks  large  in  the  utter- 
ances of  both  prophets.  He  was  a  capable  man,  he  had  authority  to 
act,  and  he  was  quick  to  respond  to  the  inspiration  of  the  men  of  God. 
Without  a  return  from  exile  it  is  hard  to  find  any  impulse  to  start  this 
movement. 

Without  presupposing  the  return  of  most  of  those  who  resided  in 
Jerus.,  it  is  difficult  to  explain  the  plea  of  the  people  that  the  time  had 
not  yet  come  for  Yahweh's  house  to  be  built  (Hg.  i^).  On  what  ground 
should  people  say  that  who  had  lived  undisturbed  in  Judah  all  their 
lives?  If  the  leading  figures  had  returned  recently  from  Bab.,  their 
objection  could  be  well  sustained.  Even  David  did  not  feel  the  incon- 
gruity of  Yahweh's  dwelling  in  curtains  until  he  himself  had  erected 
his  own  house.  These  men  from  a  foreign  country  could  naturally 
plead  that  they  needed  time  for  the  establishment  of  their  own  affairs 
before  undertaking  such  a  stupendous  task  as  the  erection  of  the 
temple. 

According  to  i  Ch.  3"  "•  both  Shes.  and  Zer.  were  descendants  of 
Jeconiah  or  Jehoiachin,  who  was  taken  to  Bab.  as  prisoner,  Shes. 
(=  Shenazzur)  being  his  son,  and  Zer.  his  grandnephew  or  his  grand- 
son. Both  of  these  men  have  Bab.  names  and,  therefore,  both  were  in 
all  probability  born  in  Bab. 

The  return  of  exiles  in  the  timeof  Cy.  is  certainly  not  improbable  in 
itself.  By  the  help  of  some  of  the  people  of  the  land,  disaffected  Bab., 
and  possibly  foreign  colonists,  Cy.  made  short  work  of  Nabonidus 
and  effected  an  easy  conquest  of  his  empire.  His  own  realms  then 
extended  from  northern  India  to  the  border  of  Egypt  (KAT.^^^).    Cy. 


THE   REIGN   OF   CYRUS  35 

was  a  Zoroastrian,  and  the  seeming  devotion  to  Marduk  in  his  inscrip- 
tion was  contributed  for  political  effect  (Jastrow,  Relig.  Ar.  and  Bab.'^-'). 
The  policy  by  which  he  proposed  to  rule  these  vast  new  dominions  is 
clearly  shown  in  his  own  words.  On  the  cylinder  inscription  he  wrote : 
"The  cities  across  the  Tigris  whose  sites  had  been  established  from 
former  times,  the  gods  who  live  within  them,  I  returned  to  their  places 
and  caused  them  to  dwell  in  a  perpetual  habitation.  All  of  their 
inhabitants  I  collected  and  restored  to  their  dwelling  places,  and  the 
gods  of  Sumer  and  Akkad  whom  Nabonidus,  to  the  anger  of  the  lord 
of  the  gods,  had  brought  into  Bab.  at  the  command  of  Marduk  the  great 
lord,  in  peace  in  their  own  shrines  I  made  them  dwell,  in  the  habitation 
dear  to  their  heart.  May  all  the  gods  whom  I  brought  into  their  own 
cities  daily  before  Bel  and  Nebo  pray  for  a  long  life  for  me,  may  they 
speak  a  gracious  word  for  me"  (Prince's  translation  in  Mene  Mene 
Tekel  Upharsin,  1893).  In  1.-^  there  is  a  passage  which  Prince  renders: 
"I  caused  their  troubles  to  cease,"  but  which  Sayce  translates:  "I 
delivered  their  prisoners"  {H.C.M.^"^).  Rogers  renders:  "I  cleared 
out  their  ruins"  (Cun.  Par.'^). 

This  passage  leaves  no  reason  for  doubt  that  (i)  any  foreign  people 
colonised  in  Bab.  could  easily  have  gained  permission  to  return  to  their 
own  land;  (2)  that  any  such  people  could  have  obtained  authority  to 
rebuild  any  sanctuaries  destroyed  by  the  Bab.;  and  (3)  that  any 
sacred  objects  plundered  from  the  captured  people,  and  resting  as 
trophies  in  the  temple  at  Bab.,  would  have  been  freely  given  back  by 
Cy.  Hammurabi  similarly  orders  the  return  of  certain  Elamite  god- 
desses to  the  shrines  from  which  they  had  been  taken  (Clay,  Light 
from  Babel, ^^'>).  The  Elephantine  documents  present  remarkable  evi- 
dence of  the  favour  of  the  Pers.  kings  toward  the  Jews.  In  the  let- 
ter to  Bagohi  the  writers  says  that  when  Cambyses  came  into  Egypt 
the  temples  of  the  Egyptian  gods  were  all  torn  down,  but  that  to  the 
temple  y^t  Jaho  no  damage  was  done.  If,  therefore,  the  events  nar- 
rated in  Ezr.  i  are  not  historical,  the  passage  was  certainly  written 
by  one  well  acquainted  with  the  policy  of  Cy.,  and  he  took  great  pains 
to  avoid  a  single  note  of  improbability  (v.  Barton,  Semitic  Origins, 

154.  310^ 

Long  before  Cy.  approached  the  empire  of  Nabonidus,  but  after  his 
conquests  foreshadowed  the  fall  of  Bab.  (Rogers,  Cim.  Par."''),  a 
Heb.  prophet  arose  among  the  Jewish  exiles.  The  whole  burden  of 
his  message  is  the  release  from  captivity  and  the  restoration  of  Jerus. 
He  discerned  clearly  the  character  and  policy  of  Cy.,  and  exalts  him 
as  the  divinely  appointed  deliverer  of  the  people  of  Yahweh  (Is.  44-^- 
45').  His  glowing  utterances  continue  until  the  conqueror  enters 
Bab.,  at  which  time  he  pours  out  his  fervent  appeal:  "Go  ye  forth 
from  Bab.,  flee  ye  from  the  Chaldeans;  with  a  voice  of  singing  declare 
ye,  tell  this,  utter  it  even  to  the  end  of  the  earth:  say  ye,  Yahweh  has 


36  INTRODUCTION 

redeemed  his  servant  Jacob"  (ib.  48'").  This  fine  prophecy  is  too 
well  known  to  need  any  elaboration.  Long  ago  I  showed  that  we 
could  follow  the  prophet  through  the  period  of  Cy.'s  approach  to  the 
actual  return  to  Jerus.  {The  Hist.  Movement  Traceable  in  Is.  40-66,  in 
And.  Rev.  Aug.  1888).  It  is  true  that  some  scholars,  apparently 
possessed  with  a  zeal  to  bring  all  the  OT.  writings  down  to  later  and 
later  dates,  have  removed  this  prophecy  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the 
reign  of  Cy.  (e.  g.,  Kent,  in  Makers  and  Teachers  of  Judaism,'^  '■). 
One  of  Kent's  arguments  is  that  the  prophet  is  concerned  primarily 
with  Jerus.  This  does  not  seem  to  me  true  of  c.  40-48,  but  if  it  were, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  on  this  ground  one  could  prove  that 
Ez.  spoke  in  Jerus.,  for  the  holy  city  was  the  constant  centre  of  his 
interest.  Without  any  prejudice  against  a  late  date  as  such,  the 
transfer  seems  to  me  to  take  the  prophecy  away  from  the  only  good 
historical  background  that  was  ever  found  for  it.  It  may  be  suspected 
that  the  prophecy  was  pushed  out  of  its  true  place  because  of  the  grave 
doubts  entertained  about  the  favour  shown  to  the  Jews  by  Cy.  Kost., 
however,  in  his  work  admits  the  high  expectations  of  Is.=,  but  contents 
himself  with  saying  that  his  hopes  were  never  realised. 

Other  prophets  expressed  their  confidence  in  the  return  from  exile 
and  the  restoration  of  Jerus.  One  of  the  most  beautiful  sections  of 
Je.  (30-33),  belonging  to  the  time  when  the  hopes  of  Judah  were  all 
centred  in  the  future,  the  present  period  being  one  of  disaster,  show 
the  prophet's  confidence  that  the  overthrow  of  the  state  was  tempo- 
rary; we  note,  esp.  325'-",  where  the  restoration  of  the  state  is  as- 
sociated with  a  return  from  exile.  A  large  section  of  Ez.  (40-48), 
the  product  of  the  prophet's  older  years,  and  worked  out  among  the 
exiles  in  southern  Bab.,  is  a  new  constitution  for  the  revived  state. 
Prophets  in  all  ages  have  visions  that  are  never  realised,  but  at  all 
events  it  may  be  confidently  said  that  there  was  nothing  to  prevent 
the  fulfilment  of  these  prophetic  hopes. 

The  literature  of  the  exile  is  abundant,  and  naturally  sounds  many 
notes.  But  there  is  one  strain  running  through  it  with  singular  per- 
sistency, a  lamentation  over  the  necessity  of  a  sojourn  in  a  foreign 
land  and  a  longing  for  the  turning  again  of  the  captivity.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  read  such  a  touching  lyric  as  Ps.  137  without  the  conviction 
that  there  were  Jews  in  Bab.  who  would  not  stay  there  a  single  day 
once  the  road  to  Jerus.  were  free.  If  there  was  no  return  of  Jews  in 
the  time  of  Cy.,  that  fact  is  one  of  the  most  stubbornly  inexplicable 
of  all  the  events  in  Heb.  history. 

Yet  Kost.  has  done  a  real  service  in  forcing  the  students  of  the  Bible 
to  take  a  truer  view  of  postex.  Israel.  The  men  who  restored  Jerus. 
were  not  wholly  nor  even  chiefly  those  who  had  been  born  on  a  foreign 
soil.  The  depopulation  of  Judah  by  Nebuchadrezzar  was  no  more 
complete  than  that  of  Sam.  by  Sargon.    Thousands  of  the  leading 


THE   REIGN   OF   DARIUS   I  37 

citizens  had  been  carried  away  in  the  two  great  deportations  of  597 
and  586  B.C.  But  more  thousands  were  left,  enough  to  form  a  sort  of 
state  under  Gedaliah  (Je.  40-44);  and  even  after  the  large  migration 
to  Egypt,  described  in  the  c.  cited,  the  foundation  of  the  colony  at 
Elephantine,  from  which  in  recent  days  such  interesting  information 
has  come  to  light,  Jews  were  still  abundant  in  every  part  of  Judah 
exc.  the  ancient  capital.  The  people  who  came  in  from  the  Judean 
towns  to  help  Neh.  build  the  walls,  and  doubtless  the  same  class  who 
were  the  chief  helpers  of  Zer.  and  Jes.  in  building  the  temple,  were 
mainly  those  who  had  been  born  and  reared  on  the  soil  of  the  God  of 
their  fathers. 

The  real  problem  of  this  period  is  the  apparent  paucity  of  numbers 
of  the  returned  exiles.  If  the  Chr.  conceived  Ezr.  2  to  be  a  list  of  those 
who  returned  in  response  to  Cy.'s  decree,  he  shows  that  he  was  awake 
to  the  actual  possibiUties.  Yet  there  would  be  a  natural  reluctance 
to  leave  Bab.  after  so  many  years'  sojourn  there.  The  Jews  have 
always  been  good  emigrants  and  are  alive  to  business  opportunities. 
Bab.  was  a  more  prosperous  country  than  Judah,  and  the  commercial 
chances  greater  there.  In  our  day  the  lack  of  zeal  to  go  back  to  Pales- 
tine halts  the  Zionistic  movement.  People  who  had  established  them- 
selves securely  would  naturally  be  loath  to  tear  up  the  roots  and  start 
all  over  again  in  an  impoverished  land  and  to  build  again  on  the  ruins 
of  a  city  long  lying  in  a  state  of  desolation. 

The  real  need  of  Judah  was  not  an  increase  of  people,  but 
competent  and  aggressive  leadership.  The  best  people  had 
been  carried  into  exile;  witness  among  other  things  the  prophecy 
of  the  good  and  bad  figs  (Je.  24).  From  the  land  of  exile  must 
come  those  who  would  arouse  the  sluggish  spirits  of  the  native 
Judeans.  Sheshbazzar,  Zerubbabel,  and  Jeshua,  Nehemiah  and 
Ezra,  and  probably  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  were  the  products 
of  Jewish  blood  and  Babylonian  enterprise,  and  their  pres- 
ence in  Jerusalem  counted  for  more  than  40,000  ordinary  men 
who  may,  indeed,  have  returned  from  exile,  but  in  the  course 
of  the  two  centuries  of  Persian  rule,  not  in  one  great  company. 


(2)   The  Reign  of  Darius  I  Hystaspis — 521-485  B.C. 

What  Sheshbazzar  and  the  small  body  of  Jews  who  came  up 
with  him  did,  we  do  not  know.  In  the  Chronicler's  use  of  his 
sources,  he  has  destroyed  any  information  that  he  may  have 


38  INTRODUCTION 

had.  There  is  a  late  tradition  that  Sheshbazzar  began  the  tem- 
ple (Ezr.  5^^),  but  that  statement  is  inconsistent  with  other  good 
evidence  and  must  be  discredited.  It  is  not  difficult  to  con- 
jecture the  conditions  though.  Even  later  it  required  great 
efforts  to  induce  the  people  to  undertake  the  stupendous  task  of 
setting  up  a  sanctuary  worthy  to  stand  on  the  site  of  the  splen- 
did edifice  erected  by  Solomon.  Sheshbazzar  may  have  sincerely 
striven  to  carry  out  the  mandate  of  Cyrus,  who  was  concerned 
to  have  every  native  god  in  his  new  dominions  properly  housed, 
and  if  he  had  been  so  fortunate  as  to  have  more  than  40,000  who 
had  come  to  Judah  inspired  by  the  same  high  purpose,  and  espe- 
cially a  royal  grant  of  all  the  funds  necessary,  as  magnanimously 
accorded  by  a  late  but  badly  informed  Aramaic  writer  (Ezr.  6^), 
his  task  would  have  been  easy.  Alas,  Sheshbazzar  came  back 
with  royal  blood  in  his  veins,  but  with  few  people  and  with  no 
other  resources  for  the  great  work  than  a  few  temple  vessels, 
and  with  such  meagre  funds  as  the  Jewish  exiles  had  seen  fit  to 
contribute.  The  people  who  did  come  with  him  were  not  the 
rich — they  are  never  the  first  to  emigrate — but  the  poor,  and 
they  would  necessarily  be  compelled  to  devote  their  attention 
to  the  pressing  problem  of  keeping  the  wolf  from  the  door. 

In  the  time  of  Darius  conditions  were  changed.  There  was 
a  new  governor  in  Judah,  there  was  a  high  priest  sure  to  be 
dominated  by  a  zeal  for  the  temple;  above  all,  there  were  at 
least  two  active  prophets,  and  very  likely  there  was  a  consid- 
erable company  of  returned  exiles.  The  apathy  of  the  native- 
born  population  could  now  be  removed,  and  the  great  work 
could  be  undertaken  with  every  prospect  of  success. 

It  is  expedient  at  this  point  to  gather  up  the  evidence  that  Ezr.  3^4' 
belongs  to  the  reign  of  Dar.,  and  not  to  that  of  Cy.,  a  point  at  which 
my  study  has  led  me  to  diverge  from  the  current  opinion. 

In  the  first  place,  the  witness  of  Jos.  is  clear  beyond  a  question. 
Referring  to  the  procuring  of  lumber  from  the  Sidonians  (Ezr.  3'),  he 
says  "  that  was  what  Cy.  had  commanded  at  first,  and  what  was  now 
done  at  the  command  of  Dar."  {Ant.  xi,  4,  i).  He  speaks  of  the  work 
beginning  in  the  2d  year  of  the  coming  of  Zer.  and  his  company  to 
Jerus.,  and  adds  that  it  was  finished  sooner  than  any  one  would  have 
expected.    He  then  tells  the  story  of  the  disappointment  of  the  older 


THE  REIGN   OF  DARIUS   I  39 

people  (Ezr.  3"),  but  this  was  after  the  completion  of  the  building. 
In  the  account  of  the  interview  with  the  Sam.  (Ezr.  4>-»),  he  makes 
Zer.  and  the  others  say  they  had  been  appointed  to  build  that  temple 
at  first  by  Cy.  and  now  by  Dar.  (Afit.  xi,  4,  3).  In  other  words,  Jos. 
gives  a  clear  and  consistent  account  of  the  actual  history  of  the  period 
and  the  only  one  that  meets  all  the  conditions. 

Now,  as  well  known,  and  shown  above  in  §  6,  Jos.  follows  Esd.,  not 
MT.  It  is  clear  that  he  put  the  only  possible  construction  upon  his 
source.  It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  Jos.  had  that  text  before  the 
extensive  modification  to  conform  to  MT.  Those  who  insist  that  Esd. 
5<7-7i  (=  Ezr.  3'-4')  is  dated  in  the  reign  of  Cy.  in  that  version  seem 
to  me  to  be  led  astray  by  a  theory.  Under  any  circumstances  we  must 
judge  by  the  large  indications  and  not  by  a  single  doubtful  phrase. 
The  arrangement  of  the  material  in  Esd.  leaves  no  doubt  about  the 
editor's  position.  In  that  version  the  reign  of  Cy.  is  separated  from 
the  reign  of  Dar.  by  the  presence  of  the  Art.  letters  (Esd.  2^^-'"  =  Ezr. 
4'-23).  This  passage  ends  with  the  statement  that  "the  building  of  the 
temple  in  Jerus.  ceased  until  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Dar.,  king 
of  the  Pers.,"  showing  conclusively  the  idea  that  the  events  described 
in  the  letter  belonged  to  the  period  between  Cy.  and  Dar.  Then 
immediately  we  come  to  the  story  of  the  Three  Guardsmen,  with  its 
sequel  in  the  expedition  of  Zer.  (Esd.  3'-50,  which  is  certainly  dated  in 
the  reign  of  Dar.,  and  that  is  followed  by  a  list  of  those  who  came  up 
with  Zer.  and  other  leaders  (5'-*^  =  Ezr.  a'-^?);  and  then  the  story  of 
the  rebuilding  of  the  altar  and  of  the  temple  (5"-"  =  Ezr.  3'-4'). 
Those  who  insist  that  in  Esd.  the  last-named  passage  is  put  in  the 
reign  of  Cy.  are  required  to  assume  that  the  compiler  goes  back  to 
Cy.  after  taking  up  in  turn  the  reigns  of  Art.  and  Dar.  The  appeal 
to  5"  ^-  is  really  vain,  for  the  passage  closes  with  the  words,  "they 
were  hindered  from  building  for  two  years  until  the  reign  of  Dar."  This 
is  mere  patchwork  to  connect  with  the  dup.  account  which  follows, 
but  even  so,  two  years  will  never  carry  us  back  from  Dar.  to  Cy.,  for 
their  reigns  are  separated,  not  by  that  of  Art.,  as  this  text  has  it,  but 
by  the  seven  years  of  the  reign  of  Cambyses. 

Even  the  Heb.  text,  in  spite  of  all  its  editing  to  make  it  tell  a  differ- 
ent story,  lends  itself  but  poorly  to  the  theory  that  3'-4'  belongs  to  the 
reign  of  Cy.  Zer.  and  Jes.  were  unquestionably  the  temple-builders, 
and  they  belong  to  the  reign  of  Dar.  Now  Ezr.  2,  on  the  face  of  it, 
has  no  word  about  Cy.  or  Shes.,  but  purports  to  be  a  list  of  those  who 
came  up  with  Zer.  et  al.  The  only  date  in  the  whole  passage,  other 
than  of  the  month,  is  "  in  the  second  year  of  their  coming  to  Jerus."  (3'), 
and  to  assume  that  that  means  Shes.'s  return  is  purely  gratuitous  and 
plainly  contradictory  to  Ezr.  2^.  Then  in  the  whole  passage  there  is 
not  a  word  about  any  halt  in  the  building  of  the  temple,  for  I  have 
shown  in  the  notes  on  the  passage  that  Ezr.  4<-«  is  from  a  different 


40  INTRODUCTION 

source,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  4^-K  The  Sam.  show  no  purpose 
of  interfering  in  this  passage  any  more  than  they  do  in  Hg.  and  Zc, 
where  any  serious  interruption  is  excluded. 

Fortunately  we  have  a  final  witness  whose  testimony  is  decisive. 
No  one  can  rd.  Ezr.  3'"  without  recognising  the  deep  corruption. 
It  has  been  my  good  fortune  to  recover  the  original  on  the  basis, of 
Esd.,  by  which  it  is  made  unmistakable  that  we  have  here  an  account 
of  the  building  of  the  temple,  and  not  merely  an  abortive  attempt  that 
was  soon  halted  (v.  comm.). 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  our  material  for  the  reign  of  Dar.  is  Ezr. 
2"'-43  42«b_5i8^  to  which  must  be  added  the  important  fragment  found 
in  Esd.  4*^5',  and  it  is  possible  now  to  give  a  clear  account  of  the 
events  as  they  actually  happened,  without  being  trammelled  by  the 
theory  of  the  Chr. 

The  first  step  was  the  restoration  of  the  altar  on  its  ancient 
site  (Ezr.  3^"^),  even  this  small  undertaking  being  accomplished 
by  the  aid  of  friendly  foreigners,  perhaps  Samaritans  (v.  cor- 
rected text  of  Ezr.  3'). 

Now  Kost.  rejects  this  passage,  and  makes  merry  over  the  notion 
that  the  Jews  had  offered  no  sacrifices  from  586  to  520  (Wied."), 
apparently  one  of  the  chief  grounds  for  its  rejection.  But  the  passage 
implies  only  that  the  altar  had  never  been  restored.  Kost.  seems  to 
think  that  sacrifices  had  never  been  offered  upon  any  other  altar.  He 
evidently  forgot  the  ancient  shrines  scattered  all  over  the  land,  which 
Josiah  had  tried  so  hard  to  wipe  out,  but  which  persisted  none  the  less. 

The  erection  of  the  altar  by  the  temple  site  in  Jerusalem,  the 
resumption  of  the  regular  sacrifices  there,  the  observance  of 
one  of  the  great  festivals,  all  tended  to  kindle  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  people  whose  fathers  had  worshipped  at  Jerusalem.  But 
all  this  was  terribly  incomplete  without  a  suitable  sanctuary, 
making  possible  the  residence  and  work  of  the  priesthood,  and 
soon  the  people  were  ready  to  respond  to  the  prophet's  call,  and 
the  foundations  of  the  new  temple  were  laid  on  the  24th  day 
of  the  9th  month  of  the  2d  year  of  Darius,  520  B.C.  (Hg.  i^  2^^). 

The  Jews  had  accepted  the  aid  of  foreigners  in  the  setting 
up  of  the  altar,  and  now  the  Samaritans  proffer  assistance  in 
the  larger  task  of  rebuilding  the  temple  (Ezr.  4' -■'').  But  they 
couple  their  request  with  a  claim  to  be  essentially  the  same  peo- 


THE   REIGN   OF   ARTAXERXES   I  4 1 

pie  and  to  have  the  same  reUgion.  Had  their  aid  been  accepted, 
it  would  have  carried  with  it  a  sort  of  recognition  of  this  claim. 
Now  there  was  doubtless  a  good  deal  of  looseness  in  the  relig- 
ious practices  of  even  the  Judeans,  who  were  inclined  to  mingle 
pretty  freely  with  their  foreign  neighbours,  certainly  to  the  ex- 
tent of  intermarriage,  and  it  is  difficult  to  go  much  further  with- 
out complete  amalgamation.  Jeshua  the  high  priest  may  have 
been  especially  anxious  to  see  the  temple  restored  as  an  effect- 
ive move  toward  the  preservation  of  a  pure  religion  and  conse- 
quently a  pure  blood.  He  could  hardly  look  with  favour  upon 
as  mixed  a  population  as  the  Samaritans  certainly  were,  and 
doubtless  it  was  largely  owing  to  his  influence  that  the  offer 
was  declined. 

It  is  stated  in  Ezr.  6'^  that  the  temple  was  completed  in  the  6th  year 
of  Dar.,  516  B.C.,  that  is,  this  building  was  put  up  in  four  years.  Even 
allowing,  as  we  must  on  the  best  of  evidence,  for  the  comparative 
meanness  of  this  building  (Ezr.  31=  Hg.  2'),  considering  the  force  and 
resources  of  the  people,  this  is  a  surprisingly  short  time.  Now  Solomon 
had  no  lack  of  either  men  or  money,  and  yet  it  required  seven  years 
to  put  up  his  temple  (i  K.  6"'').  As  I  have  shown,  the  Aram,  account 
of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  in  Ezr.  5-6  is  not  very  trustworthy. 
At  several  points  it  is  certainly  wrong,  and  yet  this  single  statement  is 
all  that  we  have  to  support  that  date.  Ezr.  6i=-'5  is  quite  generally 
regarded  as  the  work  of  the  Chr.  The  mention  of  Art.  in  6"<  is  certainly 
his  doing.  He  is  very  fond  of  specific  dates,  and  6'^  has  probably  no 
other  basis  than  his  own  opinion  as  to  the  length  of  time  required. 
We  have  no  trustworthy  knowledge  then,  and  it  is  safe  to  assume  that 
it  took  considerably  more  than  four  years  to  put  up  the  temple. 

This  is  all  the  information  we  have  from  the  reign  of  Dar.  The  long 
story  in  Esd.  3-5*  is  inserted  because  it  prepares  the  way  for  the  de- 
scription of  the  building  of  the  temple.  The  restoration  of  this  build- 
ing was  the  great  achievement  of  the  reign  of  Dar.  and  of  the  govern- 
orship of  Zer.,  and  we  do  not  know  what  else  happened  in  the  long 
period. 

(3)  The  Reign  of  Artaxerxes  I  Longimanus — 464-424  B.C. 

This  is  the  golden  age  of  the  period  of  the  restoration.  The 
greatest  achievements  of  the  Persian  period  fall  in  this  reign. 
We  have  here  a  fuller  story  than  for  any  other  part  of  the  two 


42  INTRODUCTION 

centuries  of  the  Persian  dominion  of  Judah.  And  yet  the 
whole  reduces  itself  to  pretty  much  one  single  subject,  the 
enclosing  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  with  walls. 

There  is  a  wide  gap  in  the  history  before  this  event.  The  temple 
had  been  finished  certainly  before  500  B.C.  For  more  than  fifty  years 
after  that  the  records  are  silent,  save  for  the  obscure  Ezr.  4*-*,  which 
creates  more  darkness  than  light.  During  the  closing  years  of  the 
reign  of  Dar.  the  Jews  would  not  be  able  to  go  much  further  than  they 
had.  They  were  a  poor  people,  and  the  erection  of  the  temple  must 
have  drained  their  resources,  so  that  a  period  of  recuperation  was 
necessary. 

The  inactivity  during  the  reign  of  Xerxes  must  be  due  in  part  to  the 
exhaustion  of  the  people,  and  in  part  to  his  unfriendliness  toward  the 
Jews.  The  fact  that  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  Bishlam,  Mithre- 
dates,  and  Tabeel,  apparently  Pers.  officials,  lodged  an  accusation  with 
this  king  against  "  the  inhabitants  of  Judah  and  Jerus."  (Ezr.  4'),  would 
tend  to  prevent  Xerxes  from  doing  anything  in  their  favour.  The 
book  of  Est.  has  its  setting  in  this  period,  and  it  tells  a  wonderful  story 
of  the  prominence  which  certain  Jews  attained  at  the  court  of  Xerxes. 
But  to  say  nothing  of  the  romantic  character  of  the  story,  the  scene 
is  laid  in  the  Pers.  capital,  and  even  Mordecai  in  his  exalted  station 
never  does  anything  to  serve  the  interests  of  his  brethren  in  Judah. 
Moreover,  the  book  reveals  an  inveterate  hostility  to  the  Jews  on  the 
part  of  the  Pers.  ofl&cials.  It  may  be,  if  my  surmise  is  right  regarding 
Ezr.  4*-*,  that  the  completion  of  the  temple  and  the  re-establishment 
of  the  cult  in  Jerus.  had  provoked  the  hostility  of  the  foreign  peoples 
in  the  province,  and  that  enmity  would  be  a  decided  check  upon  any 
further  achievements. 

But  the  condition  described  in  the  vv.  named  above  creates  an  urgent 
demand  for  the  great  enterprise  of  the  Pers.  period.  The  vv.  certainly 
connect  better  with  the  building  of  the  walls  than  with  the  building  of 
the  temple.  In  ancient  times  a  city  without  walls  was  no  city  at  all. 
A  handful  of  people  could  walk  into  Jerus.,  with  its  few  houses  and 
sparse  p»opulation,  and  do  what  they  listed  with  temple,  pr.,  and  peo- 
ple. Jerus.  could  not  possibly  maintain  its  place,  or  advance  to  a  po- 
sition worthy  of  its  temple,  and  of  its  being  the  religious  centre  of  the 
Jewish  world,  unless  it  was  enclosed  with  walls. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Art.  a  new  and  large  caravan  of 
exiles  had  come  back  to  Jerus.  (Ezr.  4'=),  and,  seeing  the  situation  of 
affairs,  immediately  set  to  work  to  build  the  walls.  The  fact  that  it  is 
primarily  these  returned  exiles  who  are  found  at  work  on  the  walls, 
for  Rehum  et  al.  name  no  others,  shows  that  there  must  have  been  a 
large  body.    That  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  disastrous  conse- 


THE   REIGN   OF   ARTAXERXES    I  43 

quences  which  the  complainants  fear  should  the  walls  be  completed. 
The  fact  that  Rehum  et  al.  took  the  matter  seriously  indicates  plainly 
that  there  must  have  been  a  large  number  at  work.  We  may  contrast 
their  attitude  to  the  sneers  of  Sanb.  and  To.  at  the  notion  that  the 
feeble  Jews  under  Neh.  could  rebuild  the  walls  (Ne.  3"  '■  EV.  4'  '•). 

Rehum,  Shimshai,  and  others  at  once  write  a  letter  to  Art.,  relating 
their  discovery  of  the  operations  at  Jerus.,  and  warning  the  king  that 
once  the  walls  are  up  his  peaceful  rule  of  the  Judean  province  will 
be  at  an  end.  The  authors  of  the  letter  show  exactly  the  same  hos- 
tility to  the  Jews  that  we  find  in  4*  f.  They  are  no  mere  investigators 
like  Tattenai  el  al.,  but  have  a  definite  purpose  to  keep  down  the  Jews, 
so  that  they  will  continue  easy  prey.  They  were  all  the  more  alarmed 
as  they  perceived  the  large  size  of  the  company  of  workmen  who  were 
evidently  preparing  to  make  Jerus.  their  permanent  abode.  Perhaps 
just  because  of  the  large  numbers  found  in  the  city,  they  were  con- 
strained to  appeal  to  the  Pers.  king  rather  than  attempt  to  act  for 
themselves. 

Art.  indorsed  the  charge,  finding  on  the  historical  records  confirma- 
tion as  to  the  rebellfous  character  of  the  people,  and  ordered  the  work 
to  come  to  an  end.  Backed  by  this  royal  edict,  and  in  view  of  the  pos- 
sible opposition  of  the  large  number  of  Jews,  supported  by  a  consider- 
able armed  force  {v.  on  4^^)^  the  complainants  go  to  Jerus.  and  exceed 
at  least  the  letter  of  their  instruction  by  destroying  the  work  already 
completed.  And  judging  from  the  ample  force  of  workmen  and  the 
considerable  time  which  had  elapsed,  the  major  portion  of  the  work 
may  have  been  finished,  so  that  it  could  easily  be  said  of  their  depre- 
dations: "The  walls  of  the  city  are  breached  and  its  gates  burned  with 
fire"  (Ne.  i').  For  if  Neh.  completed  the  walls  in  fifty-two  days,  as 
said  in  Ne.  6'5,  there  could  have  been  little  left  to  build  after  work 
which  may  have  continued  for  a  much  longer  time  than  fifty-two  days. 
The  destruction  of  the  work  already  done  was  necessary.  It  would 
have  been  vain  merely  to  serve  an  injunction  on  the  Jews,  as  that 
would  leave  open  the  possibility  of  completing  the  walls  secretly. 

Soon  after  this,  certainly  within  twenty  years,  Neh.  comes  to  Jerus. 
with  an  appointment  as  governor  of  Judah,  and  with  permission  to 
build  the  city  of  his  fathers'  sepulchres  (Ne.  2*).  His  commission 
seems  to  have  been  purposely  left  somewhat  vague;  it  is  quite  certain 
that  he  said  nothing  specifically  about  the  city  walls. 

Neh.  is  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  abortive  attempt  to  build  the  walls 
which  had  been  made  a  few  years  before,  and  in  his  own  plans  provides 
against  the  causes  of  failure.  In  the  first  place,  he  carefully  screens 
his  main  purpose  until  the  time  for  action  has  come.  At  the  first 
appearance  of  the  enemy,  they  only  know  that  he  has  come  "  to  seek 
good  for  the  sons  of  Israel"  (2'").  In  the  second  place,  he  makes  no 
move  until  he  has  completed  his  arrangements  so  that  the  work  can  be 


44  INTRODUCTION 

done  quickly.  If  another  appeal  is  made  to  Art.,  by  the  time  a  reply 
comes  no  force  that  can  be  collected  in  Sam.  will  be  able  to  undo  his 
undertaking.  Very  likely  the  remainder  of  the  earlier  unsuccessful 
enterprise  facilitated  his  work,  for  there  may  have  been  some  sections 
undisturbed  or  but  partly  demolished  by  Rehum  and  his  army. 

In  the  third  place,  he  came  to  Jerus.  backed  by  an  armed  guard,  so 
that  a  force  mustered  from  the  peoples  of  the  lands  would  not  be  a 
serious  menace  at  any  time.  Ezra  was  content  to  take  his  caravan 
across  the  desert  without  mihtary  escort,  trusting  in  the  protection  of 
the  Most  High  (Ezr.  8-1  f) ;  but  Neh.  did  not  trust  the  gracious  in- 
fluence of  his  God  upon  the  enemies  of  his  people,  and  was  glad  to  be 
supplied  with  a  guard  (2'),  which,  it  is  safe  to  assume,  was  as  large  as 
he  could  possibly  secure.  Apart  from  that  he  seems  to  have  carried 
from  Pers.,  or  secured  elsw.,  a  liberal  supply  of  weapons,  so  that  at  the 
proper  moment  he  could  convert  his  whole  force  of  workmen  into  a 
well-equipped  army  (4^"'')- 

In  the  fourth  place,  contrary  to  the  Chr.'s  idea  as  revealed  in  c.  3, 
Neh.  did  not  attempt  to  erect  the  gates]  until  the  last  stone  was  laid 
in  the  walls  (6=  71).  The  wooden  gates  of  the  city,  ace.  to  c.  3  ten 
in  number,  were  the  most  vulnerable  parts  of  its  defences.  An  enemy 
might  easily  slip  up  at  night  with  a  torch  and  undo  in  a  moment 
the  labour  of  days.  The  gates  were  of  little  use,  save  as  a  check,  exc. 
as  they  were  guarded  by  troops,  a  guard  established  by  Neh.  as  soon 
as  the  gates  were  in  place  (7^*^).  While  the  people  were  at  work  on 
the  walls,  the  guarding  of  all  the  gates  would  be  impossible,  and  so 
that  part  of  the  work  was  deferred  until  the  last,  so  that  it  would 
never  be  possible  to  say  of  his  work  "  that  its  gates  had  been  burned 
with  fire." 

These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  show  why  Nehemiah 
succeeded  where  others  had  failed,  and  that  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  from  the  moment  he  set  foot  in  Jerusalem  until  the  last 
gate  was  built,  locked,  and  guarded,  the  enemies  of  his  people 
had  been  persistent,  numerous,  active,  and  resourceful.  Despite 
all  their  efforts,  by  scorn,  cajolery,  open  war,  secret  intrigue, 
and  black  treachery,  they  failed,  because  they  were  over- 
matched in  the  struggle  by  their  great  opponent,  Nehemiah  the 
son  of  Hachaliah. 

The  only  other  achievement  of  Neh.'s  first  period  as  governor  of 
Judah,  barring  the  measures  to  procure  a  population  for  Jerus.  (ii'f), 
was  the  relief  of  the  distress  of  the  poor  people  who  had  been  ground 
down  by  their  richer  and  more  powerful  neighbours  (c.  5).    The  pas- 


THE   REIGN   OF    ARTAXERXES    I  45 

sage  is  of  great  importance  in  the  light  it  throws  upon  the  social  con- 
ditions of  Judah  in  the  period  444-432  B.C.,  and  for  the  welcome  addi- 
tion to  our  knowledge  of  the  character  of  Neh.  He  was  not  for  an 
instant  deaf  to  the  cries  of  distress,  and  he  was  generous  in  his  own 
contributions  for  their  relief.  He  constantly  used  his  personal  funds 
to  redeem  his  brethren  who  had  been  sold  into  slavery.  If  Neh. 
was  a  eunuch,  as  is  quite  possible,  he  had  probably  entered  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Pers.  king  as  a  poor  slave,  and  in  the  later  days  of  his  power 
and  wealth  did  not  forget  his  early  suffering,  and  was  keenly  sympa- 
thetic toward  others  in  Uke  situation.  Further,  he  served  without 
salary.  He  knew  that  the  people  were  poor;  he  had  learned  that  his 
predecessors,  who  may  have  been  Pers.  since  the  time  of  Zer.,  had 
borne  hardly  upon  the  people  by  their  exactions. 

It  is  usually  said  that  Nehemiah's  second  administration  be- 
gan in  432  B.C.  That  statement  is  incorrect.  Nehemiah  says 
plainly  that  he  was  governor  of  Judah  for  twelve  years,  from  the 
20th  to  the  32d  year  of  Artaxerxes  (5^*),  and  that  in  the  latter 
year  he  returned  to  the  king  (13®),  so  that  432  was  the  end  of 
his  first  administration. 

All  the  evidence  we  have  for  the  date  of  the  second  period  is  the 
scrap  in  13^  '•,  "and  at  the  end  of  days  I  asked  [leave  of  absence]  from 
the  king  and  I  came  to  Jerus."  But  the  text  is  much  at  fault,  as  the 
notes  show,  and  in  his  memoirs  there  is  no  hint  about  the  time  when 
he  returned  to  Jerus.  But  it  must  have  been  later  than  432;  for  in  his 
absence  several  grievous  wrongs  had  developed:  To.  had  been  given 
a  residence  in  one  of  the  temple  chambers  (13'"');  the  Lev.  had  been 
compelled  to  give  up  their  ministrations  in  the  sanctuary  and  scatter 
into  the  country  to  earn  a  living  (13'-");  a  general  disregard  of  the 
Sabbath  had  grown  up,  so  that  work  in  the  fields  and  traffic  at  Jerus. 
went  on  unquestioned  and  unhindered  (13^^---);  marriages  had  been 
contracted  with  the  Philistines,  and  the  speech  was  becoming  corrupt 
(13"'");  one  of  the  members  of  the  high  pr.'s  family  had  married 
the  daughter  of  Sanb.  the  Horonite  (13-*"=°).  All  these  things  pre- 
suppose that  Neh.'s  absence  from  Jerus.  was  a  protracted  one.  That 
is  most  probable  from  other  considerations.  Neh.  never  lost  the 
favour  of  the  king,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  Art.  would  have  per- 
mitted another  immediate  absence.  Indeed,  it  seems  clear  that  Neh.'s 
second  visit  to  Jerus.  was  occasioned,  like  the  first,  by  unfavourable 
reports  of  conditions  in  the  holy  city.  The  brief  way  in  which  he 
describes  the  big  wrongs  and  the  summary  methods  by  which  he  sets 
them  right,  all  point  to  his  coming  to  Judah  with  a  definite  purpose 
in  his  mind.     It  is  probable  that  Neh.  secured  his  second  leave  of  ab- 


46  INTRODUCTION 

sence  by  relating  to  the  king  the  evil  conditions  about  which  he  had 
heard  and  his  desire  to  remedy  them. 

But  if  we  lack  a  terminus  a  quo  we  are  more  fortunate  in  the  recent 
discovery  of  data  which  provide  a  reliable  terminus  ad  quern.  For  the 
letter  from  the  Jewish  garrison  at  Elephantine  was  addressed  "to 
Bagohi  the  governor  of  Judah"  (n-nn>  nno  '^ua),  the  very  same  title 
which  Neh.  applies  to  himself  (s").  The  date  of  this  letter  is  407  B.C., 
and  therefore  Neh.'s  rule  came  to  an  end  before  that.  Bagohi  was 
ruler  in  the  time  of  Dar.  II,  423-404,  and  prob.  by  his  appoint- 
ment. Now  Art.,  the  patron  of  Neh.,  died  in  424  B.C.  As  Neh.'s 
second  appointment  must  have  come  from  him,  at  least  the  beginning 
of  the  second  administration  must  have  preceded  that  date.  An  inter- 
val of  five  or  six  years  must  have  separated  the  two  administrations, 
and  therefore  the  second  leave  must  fall  very  near  the  end  of  the 
period  of  Art.  The  material  we  have  indicates  that  the  second  ad- 
ministration was  very  short;  prob.  it  came  to  an  abrupt  end  by  the 
death  of  the  king.  Certainly  the  events  described  in  136-31  fall  between 
432  and  424  B.C.,  and  most  likely  close  to  the  latter  date. 

The  historicity  of  the  second  administration  of  Neh.  depends  upon 
the  conclusion  reached  above  that  136-"  is  a  genuine  part  of  N.,  though 
in  a  less  pure  form  than  c.  1-6.  Those  who,  like  Torrey,  assign  c.  13 
to  the  Chr.  must  needs  begin  and  end  Neh.'s  mission  with  the  build- 
ing of  the  walls.  Torrey's  chief  point  against  the  passage,  outside  of 
the  language,  is  that  the  Neh.  here  "  is  simply  Ezra  {i.  e.,  the  Chr.), 
under  another  name"  (ES.-^^).  There  is,  indeed,  enough  resemblance 
to  lend  colour  to  such  a  view.  But  the  differences  are  too  marked  to 
make  it  tenable.  The  basis  for  the  objection  to  foreign  marriages  is 
very  far  removed  from  that  in  Ezr.  9  /.  To  suppose  one  person  to  be 
the  author  of  both  passages  seems  to  me  impossible.  Then  the  ani- 
mus against  To.  and  Sanb.  is  certainly  characteristic  of  Neh.  Again, 
the  methods  by  which  wrong  conditions  are  set  right  are  absolutely 
at  variance  with  all  that  we  know  of  Ezra.  Ezra  does,  indeed,  pluck 
out  hair,  but  from  his  own  head  (Ezr.  g');  Neh.  also  plucks  out  hair, 
but  from  the  head  of  the  wrong-doers  (13-^).  It  is  impossible  to  think 
of  Ezra  saying  to  the  traders:  "if  you  do  it  again,  I  will  lay  my  hand 
upon  you"  (i3-0-  If  the  Chr.  wrote  this  passage  with  Ezra  in  his  mind, 
I  should  say  that  he  made  Ezra  act  throughout  in  a  manner  perfectly 
characteristic  of  Neh. 

Further,  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  Chr.  should  abruptly  have  changed 
to  the  first  p.  in  v. «.  He  had  been  travelling  along  very  well  in  the 
third  so  far.  If  he  lent  colour  to  the  story  by  the  adoption  of  the  first 
p.,  why  did  he  not  employ  it  throughout  and  thus  make  the  whole 
narrative  probable?  Surely  the  Chr.  did  not  intend  to  leave  Ne.  8-13' 
open  to  suspicion,  and  then  suddenly  put  the  closing  section  in  such  a 
form  that  we  must  accept  it  alone  as  genuine.     He  must  have  con- 


THE  REIGN   OF   ARTAXERXES  II  47 

sidered  his  own  writing  just  as  good  as  Neh.'s.  Moreover,  why  should 
the  Chr.  invent  such  a  pitiably  incomplete  story  of  a  second  adminis- 
tration ? 

It  is  apparent  that  the  section  of  N.  found  in  136-31  was  not  a  sep- 
arate composition,  but  a  part  of  the  story  found  in  1-6.  And  yet  a 
section  is  lacking,  for  13'  presupposes  information  which  we  do  not 
possess,  i.  e.,  the  occasion  of  Neh.'s  return  to  Jems.;  13'-^  suggests 
what  the  material  was  like.  Just  as  Neh.  had  heard  of  the  bad  con- 
dition of  the  people  and  of  the  walls  (i^),  that  report  being  the  occasion 
of  his  first  visit,  so  now  there  had  been  brought  to  him  reports  of  other 
evil  conditions  which  stir  him  to  make  a  second  appeal  to  the  king 
and  a  second  journey  to  Jerus.  Unfortunately  the  memoirs  have  been 
condensed  in  some  respects — a  passage  must  have  fallen  out  between 
vv. « and  ' — and  expanded  in  others,  as  best  accorded  with  the  edi- 
tor's views. 


(4)  The  Reign  of  Artaxerxes  IT  Mnemon — 404-358  B.C. 

We  have  seen  good  reason  to  place  the  mission  of  Ezra  after 
that  of  Nehemiah  (v.  s.  §  10),  but  the  grounds  for  fixing  the 
date  more  closely  are  very  slender.  We  have  apparently  no 
authority  save  that  of  the  Chronicler  for  the  name  of  any  Per- 
sian king  in  connection  with  Ezra,  and  whatever  may  be  said  in 
his  favour  as  a  historian,  he  certainly  is  not  to  be  trusted  on 
questions  of  chronology.  Ezra  himself  alludes  to  his  royal 
benefactor  simply  as  "  the  king,"  and  Artaxerxes  is  only  men- 
tioned in  the  Chronicler's  introduction,  Ezr.  71- '',  and  in  the 
Aramaic  document.  The  latter  is  certainly  not  authentic  in 
its  present  form,  and  may  be  wholly  an  invention.  At  the 
same  time  7^^  requires  some  antecedent,  and  there  may  have 
been  in  the  genuine  E.  the  original  decree,  of  which  we  have 
only  an  amazing  elaboration.  Certainly  we  dare  not  follow 
Kosters  and  give  Ezra's  date  as  398  B.C.,  for  "the  7th  year" 
is  entirely  untrustworthy.  And  yet  the  conclusions  reached 
above  as  to  the  interval  between  the  two  leaders  would  sug- 
gest that  Ezra's  work  was  done  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  fourth 
century. 

For  the  history  of  Ezra  we  have  two  sources,  his  own  memoirs, 
yti  t.  gu-ia.  2i-2».  !8 1. 31  f.  as  gi-iia.  13-isj  and  the  rest  of  Ezr.  7-10,  and  Ne. 
gi-wot  u^  partly  if  not  wholly  due  to  the  Chr. 


4S  INTRODUCTION 

We  turn  first  to  sure  ground  in  E.  As  said  above,  7"  shows  that  we 
are  forced  to  begin  in  medias  res.  E.  must  have  contained  some  ac- 
count of  the  favour  of  the  king,  a  parallel  to  Ne.  2'-'.  The  outburst 
of  praise  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Pers.  king  had  given  Ezra  permis- 
sion to  go  up  to  Jerus.  at  the  head  of  a  caravan.  That  is  exactly  what 
we  have  in  the  beginning  of  the  decree,  7",  and  therefore  we  cannot 
deny  the  possibility  that  there  is  a  germ  of  an  original  element  here, 
of  which  element  more  anon. 

Ezra's  story  is  very  unlike  Neh.'s.  He  loves  graphic  details,  and 
spends  much  of  his  space  on  such  points  as  the  gathering  and  compo- 
sition of  his  company,  the  measures  taken  for  a  safe  journey,  the  cus- 
tody of  the  treasures  intrusted  to  him — that  is  all  that  we  find  in  the 
authentic  portions  of  c.  8.  Upon  his  arrival  in  Jerus.  we  have  infor- 
mation in  E.  merely  of  the  report  of  the  mixed  marriages,  of  his  dis- 
tress over  these  tidings,  and  of  his  prayer — for  that  is  all  there  is  in  c.  9. 

How  much  dependence  is  to  be  placed  on  the  rest  of  the  story  about 
Ezra  is  certainly  open  to  question.  We  have,  at  all  events,  a  note  to 
guide  us,  even  though  it  is  somewhat  indefinite.  In  praising  God  for 
the  favour  of  the  king,  he  states  what  that  favour  consists  in,  viz., 
"to  glorify  the  house  of  God  which  is  in  Jerus."  (7").  The  word 
"glorify"  is  found  elsw.  only  in  Is.  55^  6o'-  ^-  "  and  is  used  there  of  the 
temple  twice;  it  is,  indeed,  somewhat  vague,  and  yet  these  words  must 
provide  the  key  to  Ezra's  mission.  It  is  consistent  with  this  key 
that  when  Ezra  inspected  his  company  at  Ahava  and  found  neither 
pr.  nor  sons  of  Levi  {v.  on  8^0 >  he  kept  his  caravan  in  camp  until  he 
had  brought  from  Casiphia  a  sufficient  number  of  "ministers  for  the 
house  of  God"  (Si')-  Another  leading  subject  in  this  part  of  E.  is  the 
proper  safeguarding  of  the  large  treasures  which  Ezra  had  collected 
for  the  temple.  In  other  words,  all  of  E.  in  c.  8  supports  absolutely 
the  conclusion  that  Ezra's  whole  mission  was  designed  to  carry  out  the 
king's  purpose  "  to  glorify  the  house  of  God  which  is  in  Jerus." 

Now  if  we  examine  the  Aram,  document  containing  the  decree,  we 
find  a  part  of  it  in  harmony  with  this  key.  The  pr.  and  Lev.  were 
expressly  authorised  to  return  with  Ezra;  he  was  directed  to  take  to 
Jerus.  the  offerings  made  by  the  king  and  his  officers  and  by  others 
(presumably  Jews),  which  had  been  given  for  the  purpose  of  glorifying 
the  house  of  God;  and  was  given  instructions  to  use  these  funds  for 
the  purchase  of  supplies  required  for  the  temple  ritual.  Therefore 
this  part  of  the  decree  712-20,  barring  a  few  obvious  amplifications,  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  main  purpose  of  Ezra,  and  if  it  is  not 
original,  but  a  production  of  the  Chr.,  then  this  strange  historian  for 
once  composed  a  work  more  than  usually  in  harmony  with  its  setting. 
If  this  part  of  the  decree  is  authentic,  then  of  course  the  date  of  Ezra 
is  fixed  in  the  reign  of  an  Art.,  and  that  could  only  be  Art.  II. 

The  rest  of  the  story  of  Ezra  must  be  judged  by  its  consistency  with 


THE  REIGN   OF   ARTAXERXES   II  49 

this  central  theme.  Now  the  Lev.,  whom  Ezra  was  at  such  pains  to 
bring  with  him,  are  employed  in  other  ways  than  in  the  ministrations 
at  the  temple,  and  therefore  the  passage  Ne.  7"°-8'-  is  open  to  grave 
suspicion,  while  the  later  portions  of  that  c,  the  account  of  the  Feast 
of  Booths  (8"-i8)  is  in  better  state. 

It  may  seem  that  Ezr.  9,  which  is  mostly  from  E.,  would  have  to  be 
rejected  on  these  grounds.  But  a  closer  inspection  establishes  a  good 
connection.  When  Ezra  learned  that  a  large  number  of  people,  in- 
cluding pr.  and  Lev.,  had  intermarried  with  foreigners,  he  could  see 
that  his  plan  to  glorify  the  house  of  God  would  be  hopeless.  To  main- 
tain the  temple  ritual  with  proper  dignity  requires  a  people  of  pure 
blood,  for  the  amalgamating  people  will  result  in  an  amalgamating 
religion.  This  intermarriage  must  be  checlied  before  any  glorifying 
of  the  temple  is  possible.  The  sequel  to  Ezra's  lament  (Ezr.  10)  is 
not  from  his  hand,  but  in  the  main  it  tells  a  true  story.  There  are 
striking  features  which  suggest  another  pen  than  the  Chr.'s.  Surely 
something  must  have  happened  after  Ezra's  prayer,  and  there  is  no 
improbability  in  the  divorce  story  in  its  main  features. 

If  Ezra  had  anything  to  do  with  the  establishment  of  the  law — and 
our  sources  for  this  event  are  really  scanty  and  poor — this  part  of  his 
work  could  have  come  about  only  as  the  conditions  he  discovered  con- 
strained him  to  turn  aside  from  his  main  purpose.  Sta.  emphasises 
the  fact  that  according  to  our  sources  Ezra  was  the  possessor  of  the 
law,  not  its  author  (Gesch.  ii,"'''''^).  When  he  learned  of  the  mixed 
marriages  and  had  taken  appropriate  measures  to  break  them  up,  he 
might  well  have  felt  that  the  people  must  conform  to  the  law  in  all 
respects  before  there  was  any  hope  of  making  the  temple  worship  the 
central  interest  in  Jewish  life  and  religion.  But  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  at  most  Ezra's  connection  with  the  law  was  slight  and 
incidental.  Our  idea  of  Ezra's  part  in  the  law  must  depend  largely 
upon  our  opinion  of  the  credibility  of  the  decree  (7"  ^ ). 

The  c.  dealing  with  the  reading  of  the  law  (Ne.  8)  has  caused  much 
discussion,  chiefly  as  to  its  proper  place.  Kost.  is  confident  that 
it  must  follow  Ne.  10.  He  argues  that  in  c.  8  a  new  law  is  intro- 
duced, and  the  only  new  law  must  be  the  pr.  code.  He  analyses 
c.  9,  10  and  finds  no  reference  to  this  code.  In  this  way  he  thinks  he 
finds  a  suitable  place  for  the  troublesome  Hst,  7^-",  for  after  Ne.  9,  10 
the  people  felt  the  need  of  organisation,  and  a  list  was  made  of  those 
in  the  newly  organised  community.  As  he  deems  the  list  closely 
bound  with  c.  8,  he  places  the  whole  section,  7«-8'S  as  the  direct  sequel 
to  Ne.  9,  10  {Wied. '"■»''). 

Torrey  with  equal  confidence  places  this  section,  7"^8",  between 
Ezr.  8  and  9.  He  gives  the  following  reasons  for  the  transposition 
(ES.'"  *•):  (i)  To  quote  his  own  words:  "here  is  a  clear  and  consist- 
ent story,  the  only  clear  and  consistent  story  dealing  with  Ezra  that 


50  INTRODUCTION 

has  ever  been  told  by  any  one."  (2)  "The  dates  given  in  such  pro- 
fusion throughout  the  narrative  are  now  all  intelligible  for  the  first 
time."  (3)  He  sees  an  incongruity  between  c.  8  and  the  c.  following, 
finding  nothing  to  account  for  the  sackcloth  and  ashes  in  91,  but  deem- 
ing Ezr.  10,  which  he  thinks  lacks  a  conclusion,  good  grounds  for  the 
mourning.  (4)  "Ezra  makes  his  journey  to  Jerus.  in  order  to  teach 
and  administer  the  law,  but  it  is  not  until  13  years  after  his  arrival 
that  he  first  presents  it  to  the  people."  (5)  Another  point  on  which 
much  stress  is  laid  is  that  in  the  present  arrangement  the  divorce  of 
the  foreign  wives  (Ezr.  9/.)  was  effected  according  to  the  law,  and  that 
before  the  law  was  made  known. 

Formidable  as  the  array  of  arguments  is,  it  is  not  convincing.  I 
make  a  few  comments,  (i)  It  is  not  possible  to  make  any  clear  and 
consistent  story  out  of  Ezr.  7-10  and  Ne.  8-10,  for  the  latter  c,  out- 
side of  c.  8,  never  contain  Ezra's  name,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  con- 
necting them  with  Ezra  at  all.  If  the  Chr.  had  written  them  as  a  part 
of  his  Ezra  story,  Ezra  being  his  great  hero — a  point  emphasised  by 
Torrey — he  would  not  have  omitted  his  name  in  that  long  passage. 
(2)  Many  of  the  dates  are  too  indefinite  to  enable  us  to  make  a  chron. 
sequence  that  is  convincing.  (3)  Ezr.  9  is  certainly  not  very  closely 
connected  with  Ezr.  8.  But  after  c.  8  we  must  advance  to  some  report 
of  the  first  thing  Ezra  did  after  establishing  himself  in  Jerus.  There 
is  no  reason  why  he  should  have  done  one  thing  more  than  another. 
As  for  the  grounds  for  the  sackcloth  and  ashes  of  Ne.  9',  it  seems  to 
be  a  poor  sequel  to  Ezr.  10".  After  the  compliance  with  Ezra's  plea 
and  the  putting  away  of  the  foreign  wives  in  accordance  with  the 
law,  it  would  be  more  natural  to  expect  a  period  of  rejoicing,  such  as 
we  have  in  Ne.  8'^-",  than  a  scene  of  humiliation  as  described  in  Ne. 
9.  It  would  be  vain  to  comply  with  the  law,  if  the  result  were  only 
sackcloth  and  ashes.  (4)  In  E.  the  law  is  never  mentioned,  but  his 
appeal  is  general  to  the  commandments  of  God  (Ezr.  9'"-  ")•  As  shown 
above  in  his  own  description  of  the  purpose  of  his  mission,  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  law  has  but  a  dub.  place.  (5)  This  point  is  not  well 
taken.  The  Hebrews  were  always  averse  to  foreign  marriages.  Abra- 
ham makes  his  servant  swear  that  he  would  get  a  wife  for  Isaac  from 
his  own  people  (Gn.  24  J);  Samson's  parents  are  disturbed  at  the 
plea  of  the  hero  for  a  Philistine  wife  (Ju.  14^);  and  finally  the  prohi- 
bition of  foreign  marriages  is  in  "  the  little  book  of  the  covenant"  and  in 
Dt.  only  (Ex.  34^'  Dt.  7^),  pre-ex.  laws.  Since  there  was  a  temple  of 
Jaho  in  Jeb.,  contrary  to  the  Deut.  law,  Sachau  argues  that  this  law 
could  not  exist  in  407  B.C.  Others  have  given  a  different  interpretation 
of  the  surprising  fact.  But  in  any  case  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  pre-ex. 
ban  upon  marriage  with  foreigners.  It  is  really  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  Jews  must  wait  upon  Ezra's  reading  of  the  law  to  learn  that 
such  marriages  were  forbidden. 


THE   REIGN   OF   ARTAXERXES   II  5 1 

It  is  necessary  now  to  consider  Torrey's  radical  theory  that 
Ezra  is  wholly  a  creation  of  the  Chronicler;  in  other  words,  that 
Ezra  is  not  a  historical  personage,  but  a  character  of  fiction. 

Torrey's  arguments  are  based  largely  upon  the  language  of  the 
Chr.,  which  he  deems  esp.  abundant  in  the  Ezra  story.  Again,  he 
urges  that  Ezra  "was  a  man  precisely  like  the  Chr.  himself:  interested 
very  noticeably  in  the  Lev.,  and  esp.  the  class  of  singers;  deeply 
concerned  at  all  times  with  the  details  of  the  cult  and  with  the  eccle- 
siastical organisation  in  Jerus.;  armed  with  lists  of  names  giving  the 
genealogy  and  official  standing  of  those  who  constituted  the  true 
church:  with  his  heart  set  on  teaching  and  enforcing  the  neglected 
law  of  Moses  throughout  the  land;  and — most  important  of  all — 
zealous  for  the  exclusion  of  the  'people  of  the  land,'  the  condemnation 
of  mixed  marriages,  and  the  preservation  of  the  pure  blood  of  Israel! 
There  is  not  a  garment  in  all  Ezra's  wardrobe  that  does  not  fit  the 
Chr.  exactly"  (ES.^"). 

A  large  part  of  this  description  does  not  fit  the  Ezra  we  know  in 
the  memoirs,  e.  g.,  there  is  not  a  single  reference  to  singers  in  E.;  there 
is  not  a  word  about  the  law;  there  is  no  genealogical  or  other  list  of 
names.     The  criticism  is  decidedly  indiscriminate. 

Further,  no  person  would  contend  that  in  all  the  period  from  400 
down  to  his  own  time,  the  Chr.  was  the  only  person  interested  supremely 
in  the  matters  enumerated  in  the  passage  quoted  above.  Ezra  was 
a  kindred  spirit  to  the  Chr. — and  there  must  have  been  many  such  be- 
fore the  Chr.'s  time — and  the  Chr.  by  his  revisions  and  additions  has 
doubtless  made  Ezra  more  kindred  to  himself  than  he  really  was. 

Another  reason  urged  by  Torrey  is  the  silence  of  Sirach  {Conip.'^^). 
Sirach  writing  apparently  c.  180  B.C.,  composed  a  long  passage  (c. 
44-50)  in  praise  of  the  great  men  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Of  those 
in  our  period,  Zer.  and  his  associate  Jes.,  and  Neh.  are  accorded  brief 
mention  (49"""),  but  Ezra's  name  is  not  found.  This  seems  to  me  the 
weightiest  of  Torrey's  arguments.  It  is  certain  that  Ezra  did  not 
have  the  place  in  the  Jewish  church  in  the  time  of  Sirach  that  the  Chr. 
would  have  liked.  But  it  is  certain  that  there  was  never  an  edition  of 
the  book  of  Ch.  (including  Ezr.-Ne.)  which  did  not  contain  the  story 
of  Ezra,  though  there  may  have  been  an  edition  silent  about  Neh. 
The  book  of  Ch.  may  be  pretty  late,  but  it  is  not  as  late  as  Sirach. 
To  give  no  other  reason  here,  the  author  of  the  hymn  had  these  records 
for  Zer.  Jes.  and  Neh.,  and  therefore  he  must  have  had  them  for  Ezra. 
Why  he  made  no  mention  of  Ezra's  name,  it  is  impossible  to  learn. 
He  left  out  other  names,  e.  g.,  Shes.,  and  he  omitted  Ezra  for  some  good 
reason,  possibly  because  he  was  not  in  as  deep  sympathy  with  the 
ruthless  proceedings  described  in  Ezr.  10  as  the  Chr.  was. 


52  INTRODUCTION 

If  Sirach  was  silent,  other  writers  made  up  for  the  defect  by  the 
exaltation  of  the  priest-scribe.  In  several  prophetic  lists,  e.  g.,  Iraen. 
Ag.  Her.  1.  xxx.  ii,  Ezra  appears  in  the  list  of  prophets  in  place  of 
Mai.  {v.  Nestle,  ZAW.  1907,1'=). 

§    12.      CHAPTER    AND    VERSE    DIVISIONS. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  in  several  books  of  the  OT.  the  EV^. 
follow  H  and  in  places  have  a  different  arrangement  of  chapters 
from  those  in  MT.  It  is  necessary  in  a  critical  commentary  to 
follow  the  original  text.  Fortunately  there  is  but  one  section 
in  Ne.  where  the  confusion  exists,  and  there  is  none  in  Ezr, 
The  appended  table  will  serve  as  an  adequate  guide.  The 
English  division  is  really  the  better,  as  it  conforms  to  sub- 
ject matter. 


MT. 

Eng.                     MT.          Eng.                 MT.          Eng. 

HI,  33 

IV, 

I                        3                9                      II               17 

34 

2                        4              10                      12               18 

35 

3                        5              II                      13               19 

36 

4                       6              12                     14              20 

37 

5                       7              13                     15              21 

38 

6                       8              14                     16              22 

IV.     I 

7                       9              IS                     17              23 

2 

8                      10              16 

The 

only  other  variation  is  in  Ne.  10,  where  MT.  10'  =  Eng.  9", 

10'  =  loS  etc. 

,  the  number  of  the  vv.  in  EV^.  throughout  the  c.  being 

one  less  than  that  of  MT. 

§  13.      LITERATURE. 

As  there  is  a  comprehensive  bibliography  in  Curt,  covering 
much  the  same  ground,  for  the  most  part  only  special  works 
on  Ezr.-Ne.  are  named  here. 

Commentaries. 

Rabbi  Saadiah,  Ezr.  and  Neh.  ed.  by  H.  J.  Mathews,  1882.  E. 
Bertheau,  Die  Biicher,  Esra,  Nech.  u.  Ester,  2d  ed.  by  V.  Ryssel,  1887. 
S.  Oettli  u.  J.  Meinhold,  Die  Gesch.  Hagiographen,  1889.  H.  E. 
Ryle,  Ezr.  and  Neh.  in  Camb.  Bib.  1893.  W.  F.  Adeney,  Ezr.-Neh.~ 
Est.  Exp.  Bible,  1893.  H.  Guthe  and  L.  W.  Batten,  Ezr.  a}id  Neh. 
in  SBOT.  1901.     M.  Seisenberger,  Die  Biicher  Esd.,  Neh.  u.  Est.  in 


LITERATURE  53 

Kurzgef.  wissensch.  Com.  2.  d.  H.  S.  dcs  A.  T.  1901.  D.  C.  Siegfried, 
Esr.,  Neh.  u.  Est.  in  Handkom.  dcs  A.  T.  1901.  A.  Bertholet,  Die 
Backer  Esr.  u.  Neh.  in  Kurzer  Handkom.  des  A.  T.  1902.  G.  Holscher, 
U.  S.  A.  T.  1910. 

Monograplis. 

Kleinert,  On  the  Origin,  Elements  and  Antiquity  of  the  Books  of  Ezr. 
atid  Neh.  1832.  R.  Smend,  Die  Listen  d.  Biicher  Esr.  u.  Neh.  1881. 
A.  H.  Sayce,  Int.  to  Ezr.  Neh.  and  Est.  1885.  J.  Imbert,  Le  Te?nple 
Reconstriiit  par  Zorob.  1889.  G.  Rawlinson,  Ezr.  and  Neh.  {Men  of  the 
Bible),  1890.  P.  H.  Hunter,  After  the  Exile,  1890.  A.  van  Hoonacker, 
Neh.  et  Esd.  1890;  Zorob.  et  le  Second  Temple,  1892;  Nouvelles  Etudes  sur 
la  Restaur.  Julve.  1896.  W.  H.  Kosters,  Die  Wiederherstellimg  Israels 
in  der  persischcn  Period  (from  the  Dutch  Herstel  van  Israel  in  het. 
Perzische  Tijdoak),  by  A.  Basedow,  1895.  E.  Meyer,  Die  Entstehung 
des  Judenthums,  1896.  Bertholet,  Die  Stellung  der  Israeliten  u.  d. 
Jtiden  z.  d.  Fremden,  1896.  E.  Sellin,  Serubbabel,  1898;  Sttidien  z. 
Entstehungsgeschichte  der  jiid.  Gemeinde,  1901.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Jewish 
Religious  Life  After  the  Exile,  1898.  J.  Geissler,  Die  liter.  Beziehungen 
der  Esra  Memoiren,  1899.  Rosenzweig,  Einl.  in  d.  Biicher  Esr.  u. 
Neh.  J.  Nikel,  Die  Wieder  her  stellung  d.  jiid.  Gemeinwesens  nach  d. 
babyl.  Exit,  1900.  C.  Holzhey,  Die  Biicher  Ezr.  u.  Neh.  1902.  S. 
Gelbhaus,  Esra  u.  seine  reformatorischen  Bestrebungen,  1903.  J.  Fischer, 
Die  Chron.  Frage  in  d.  Biichern  Esr.-Neh.  1903.  J.  Theis,  Gesch.  u. 
literarkritik  Fragen  in  Esr.  1-6  (in  Nikel's  Alttest.  Abhandl.  11,  5), 
19 10.  C.  C.  Torrey,  Comp.  and  Hist.  Value  of  Ezr. -Neh.  (Beihefte  zur 
ZAW.),  1896;  Ezra  Studies,  1910.  Apparatus  for  Text.  Crit.  of  Ckr.- 
Ezr.-Neh.  (Harper  Studies). 

Articles. 

H.  Winckler,  "Die  Zeit  der  Herstellung  Judas";  "Nehemias  Reform." 
Alt.  Forsch.  H,  ii,  i;  "Die  Zeit  v.  Ezras  Ankunft  in  Jerus."  ib.  II,  ii, 
2;  "Die  doppelte  Darstellung  in  Ezr.-Neh."  ib.  II,  iii,  2.  E.  Schrader, 
"Die  Dauer  d.  zweiten  Tempelbaues,"  Stud.  n.  Krit.  1867.  E.  Nestle, 
"Marginalien  u.  Materilien,"  =3-31,  1893;  Real-Ency.'  V.  J.  Wellhau- 
sen,  "Die  Ruckkehr  d.  Juden  a.  d.  Babyl.  Exil,"  G.  G.  N.  1895. 
T.  F.Wright,  "Nehemiah's  Night  Ride,"  JBL.  1896;  "The  Stairs 
of  the  City  of  David,"  ib.  1897.  C.  C.  Torrey,  "Old  Testament 
Notes,"  JBL.  1897.  W.  J.  Moulton,  "Uber  die  Uberlieferung  u.  d. 
text-krit.  Werth  des  dritten  Esrabuchs,"  ZAW.  i899,=<i='--'8,  i9oo,>-'<. 
Fraenkel,  "Zum  Buch  Ezra,"  ZAW.  1899.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  "From 
Isaiah  to  Ezra,"  AJT.  1901;  "The  Times  of  Neh.  and  Ezra,"  Bib. 
World,  1899.  H.  Howorth,  PSBA.  1901,  1902.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  "The 
Wall  of  Jerus.  Ace,  to  the  Book  of  Neh."  JBL.  1903.     L.  W.  Batten, 


54  INTRODUCTION 

"Ezr.-Nch.";  "  Ezr.";  "  Nch."  Hast.  DB.  Rosters,  "Ezr.-Neh."  EB. 
J.  V.  Prasck,  "Kambj'ses  u.  d.  Ubcrlicferung  d.  Altertums";  "Zur  Chro- 
nologic des  Kyros,"  Forsch.  z.  Gcs.  d.  Alt.  L.  W.  Batten,  "  Israel  of 
the  Post-exilic  Period,"  Horn.  Rev.  April,  1913. 

General. 

A.  Kuenen,  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen,-^'--^*,  1894.  B.  Stade,  Bibl. 
Theologie  des  A.T.^^^-^'"^,  1905.  Addis,  Ezra  and  the  Issue  of  the  La-w, 
Documents  of  the  Hexateuch,  II,'''  f^-  Robertson,  Poetry  and  Religion 
of  the  Psalms,  c.  5.  Marquart,  Fundamente  Israel,  u.  jiid.  Geschichte, 
1896.     C.  F.  Kent,  Israel's  Hist,  and  Biog.  Narratives, ^^^-^^*,  1910. 

Biblical  Aramaic. 

Powell,  The  Supposed  Hebraisms  in  Biblical  Aramaic,  1907.  S. 
Baer,  Chaldaismi  Biblici  Adumbratio,  in  the  Baer-Delitzsch  ed.  of 
MT.  vol.  Dn.-Ezr.-Ne.^"'-'^.  H.  L.  Strack,  Grammatik  des  B.  Aram.*, 
1905.  K.  Marti,  Kurzgef.  Gram,  der  B.-Aram.  Sprache,  1896.  E. 
Kautzsch,  Grammatik  des  B.  Aram.  1884.  Sachau,  Aramdische  Papyri 
und  Oslraka  aus  Elephantine,  191 1.  C.  R.  Brown,  An  Aramaic  Method, 
1884.     Schulthess,  Miscellen  ziim  Bibl.  Aram.  ZAW.  1902,'==  «■ 

Some  Important  Dates. 

B.C. 

559-521  Cyrus. 
521-485  Darius  I  Hystaspis. 
520  Rebuilding  of  the  temple. 

485-464  Xerxes. 

464-424  Artaxerxes  I  Longimanus. 
444-432  Nehemiah  governor  of  Judah. 
424-404  Darius  II  Nothus. 
404-359  Artaxerxes  II  Mnemon. 
Mission  of  Ezra. 


A   COMMENTARY   ON    EZRA-NEHEMIAH. 

EZR.  I  =  ESD.  2I-".      THE    END    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    EXILE. 

Bab.  was  conquered  by  Cy.  in  539  b.c.  In  that  country  he, found 
many  colonies  of  foreigners  who  had  been  brought  there  as  prisoners 
of  war  in  accordance  with  the  As.  and  Bab.  pohcy  of  transplanting  con- 
quered peoples.  Cy.  reversed  this  policy,  and  allowed  all  such  peoples 
to  return  to  their  homes.  In  the  city  of  Bab.  Cy.  found  also  many 
sacred  images  and  other  objects  from  foreign  temples,  brought  there 
as  trophies,  or  by  Nabonidus  for  protection  (cf.  Is.  46'  '•).  The  new 
king  directed  all  these  images  to  be  taken  back  to  their  native  shrines. 
This  policy  was  designed  to  effect  the  pacification  of  the  peoples  he 
conquered.  Indeed,  he  appeared  in  Bab.  as  a  redeemer  rather  than  a 
conqueror.  In  accordance  with  this  general  programme  we  have  the 
statement  that  a  special  decree  was  issued  in  favour  of  the  Jews  (v. 
Intr.  §  "■  0-  Vv.  !-<• '  f- '"'  are  from  a  Heb.  source,  the  rest  by  the  Chr. 
{Intr.%^*). 

1-4.  The  decree  of  Cyrus. — In  the  first  year  of  his  reign 
in  Babylon  we  are  told  that  Cyrus  set  forth  an  edict,  allowing 
all  captive  Jews  to  return  to  Jerusalem,  directing  them  to  re- 
build the  house  of  their  God,  and  enjoining  their  Jewish  neigh- 
bours who  remained  behind  to  strengthen  their  hands  with 
gifts  to  be  used  for  the  temple,  and  probably  ordering  the  res- 
toration to  the  returning  pilgrims  of  the  sacred  vessels  which 
had  been  taken  from  the  temple  in  586. 

1.  And  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus].  Cyrus  had  ascended  the 
throne  in  559  e.g.  His  first  year  is  put  here  twenty  years 
later,  either  because  the  Chronicler  only  knew  of  Cyrus  as 
ruler  of  Babylonia,  or  because  the  previous  years  of  his  reign  are 
deemed  unimportant  in  connection  with  Jewish  history.  Cyrus 
entered  Babylon  in  the  late  autumn  of  539  B.C.,  and  this  decree 
may,  therefore,  fall  in  the  year  538.  Cyrus,  like  his  successor 
Darius,  was  a  descendant  of  Achaemenes  and  was,  therefore, 
an  Aryan  and  a  Zoroastrian.     However  much  of  a  monotheist 

SS 


56  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

he  may  have  been  in  Ansan,  he  was  very  liberal  in  his  attitude 
toward  the  gods  of  other  peoples. — King  of  Persia].  The  great 
Persian  empire  did  not  reach  its  full  height  of  power  until  the 
time  of  Darius,  and  this  title,  therefore,  has  been  regarded  as  a 
mark  of  the  Chronicler's  hand.  This  contention  is  invalid,  for 
in  the  inscription  of  Nabonidus,  546  B.C.,  the  same  title  is  em- 
ployed.— To  fulfil  the  word  of  Yahweh].  Here  we  have  a  con- 
ception of  history  which  abounds  in  the  Gospels,  especially  in 
Matthew.  The  idea  of  the  evangelist  is  that  the  acts  of  Jesus 
are  determined  by  the  predictions  which  have  been  made  long 
before.  The  true  conception  from  the  Hebrew  point  of  view 
is  that  God  controlled  both  the  messages  of  the  prophets  and 
the  actions  of  kings,  and  therefore  the  king  is  led  to  fulfil  the 
prediction.  In  the  pre-exilic  period  the  apologetic  appeal  is 
based  on  the  works  of  God;  in  our  period  this  new  element  is 
introduced.  The  exiled  Jews  are  aroused  to  a  new  faith  in  God 
because  things  happen  as  the  prophets  have  foretold.  This 
idea  is  brought  out  prominently  in  Is.  48,  a  passage  belonging 
to  this  very  time.  "The  restoration  was  the  last  special  proof 
and  sign  that  God  was  a  factor  in  the  life  of  the  Hebrew  peo- 
ple under  the  old  dispensation"  (Simon,  Bible  as  Theocratic 
Liter ature,^^). — From  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah].  In  2  Ch.  36'^^  we 
have  "by  the  mouth,"  but  without  any  difference  of  meaning. 
By  places  the  emphasis  on  the  prophet  as  a  mere  instrument  of 
God. 

In  2  Ch.  3621  there  is  a  reference  to  the  fulfihnent  of  another  Jeremian 
prophecy  that  the  exile  would  last  seventy  years  (Je.  29";  v.  Curt.). 
This  passage  is  sometimes  loosely  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  same 
thing;  but  that  is  incorrect.  The  prediction  refers  to  the  moving  of 
Cy.  to  issue  his  decree  in  favour  of  the  Jews.  Je.  contains  no  passage 
referring  to  such  an  event,  but  the  required  prophecy  is  found  in  Is.= 
{v.  41=  f-  "  44='  450-  This  prophet  ascribes  Cy.'s  victories  to  Yahweh, 
using  language  very  similar  to  Cy.'s  own,  only  that  in  the  latter  Mar- 
duk  is  the  moving  spirit  (cf.  Cy.'s  Inscription,  Rogers,  Cun.  Parol, ^'^°). 
In  Is.  Cy.  is  called  Yahweh's  shepherd,  having  responsible  care  of 
his  people,  and  even  by  the  Messianic  title  "  his  anointed."  This 
prophet  certainly  had  great  expectations  from  Cy.,  and  he  watches  his 
conquering  career  with  keen  anticipations  of  good  for  his  own  people. 
Jos.  regards  Is.  as  the  prophet  who  influenced  Cy.,  saying  that  Cy.  rd. 


EZRA    I  57 

the  book  written  by  Is.  one  hundred  and  forty  years  before  the  temple 
was  destroyed  (Anliq.  xi,  i,  2).  "  Je.,"  therefore,  is  either  a  txt.  err., 
or  else  this  anonymous  prophecy  (Is.  40-66)  was  attributed  to  that 
prophet  instead  of  to  Is.  (v.  Duhm,  JerM).  Berth,  and  Ryle  refer 
the  passage  to  Je.,  but  wrongly.  If  a  txt.  err.,  it  is  an  early  one,  for 
it  is  reproduced  in  all  the  Vrss.  Prob.  it  is  explained  from  the  ref- 
erence to  Je.  properly  in  the  preceding  v.  of  Ch.,  this  name  being 
repeated  instead  of  the  correct  one. 


Yahweh  moved  the  spirit].  (See  v.  ^)  This  expression  shows 
the  more  refined  theological  ideas  of  the  later  times.  The 
prophet  makes  Yahweh  address  Cyrus  directly.  Now  we  find 
a  spirit  in  man  which  may  be  influenced  to  action  by  Yahweh, 
and  henceforward  that  is  the  method  by  which  God's  will 
is  accomplished  among  men.  Cf.  Nehemiah's  expression  "my 
God  had  put  in  my  heart"  =  moved  my  spirit  (Ne.  2^2) . — And 
he  issued  a  proclamation],  literally,  caused  a  voice  to  go  through. 
The  words  suggest  a  herald  rather  than  a  written  document, 
and  the  heraldic  method  is  not  improbable  here,  though  the 
words  might  refer  to  a  decree,  especially  if  it  were  read  by  the 
heralds. — In  his  whole  kingdom].  The  empire  of  Cyrus  em- 
braced regions  where  there  were  no  Jews.  The  Hebrews  were 
apparently  settled  in  districts  and  were  pretty  well  localised. 
The  writer  seems  to  have  ignored  any  realm  of  Cyrus  except  his 
latest  conquest.  The  edict  would  naturally  be  sent  only  to  the 
Jewish  colonies  in  Babylonia. — And  also  in  writing].  These 
words  imply  that  the  proclamation  was  oral,  and  are  intended 
to  show  that  the  Chronicler  had  a  written  source  for  his  version 
of  the  edict. — Saying,  better  as  j allows.  The  literal  transla- 
tion mars  the  Scriptures  sadly,  recurring  hundreds  of  times,  and 
proving  a  stumbling-block  in  reading  aloud. — 2.  All  the  king- 
doms of  the  world].  With  the  conquest  of  Babylon,  all  its  de- 
pendencies fell  to  Cyrus,  and  his  became  a  vast  empire,  extend- 
ing from  Elam  on  the  east  to  the  Mediterranean  on  the  west. 
This  did  not  cover  all  the  countries  of  the  world,  but  the  exag- 
geration is  more  natural  for  Cyrus  than  for  a  Jewish  writer,  for 
on  the  cylinder  inscription  he  calls  himself  "the  king  of  the  four 
quarters  of  the  earth,"  i.  e.,  of  the  whole  world. — Has  Yahweh 


58  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

given  me].  Here  we  have  the  reflection  of  the  prophetic  utter- 
ance in  Is.  45*  ^^  In  his  own  inscription  Cyrus  attributes  his 
conquest  of  Babylon  to  Marduk,  its  chief  deity.  But  he  may 
have  become  acquainted  with  the  prophecies  above  referred  to, 
and  then  in  an  edict  to  the  Jews  given  their  God  credit  for 
his  victories.  Such  credit  would  please  the  Jews,  as  the  aid 
of  Marduk  was  certainly  claimed  to  placate  the  Babylonians. 
— The  God  of  heaven]  is  an  expression  not  found  in  pre-exilic 
writings.  The  common  terms  are  God  of  Israel,  of  hosts,  or  of 
our  fathers.*  Nehemiah,  however,  regularly  uses  the  expres- 
sion (i*  '•  2*-  2°).  In  a  magic  bowl  from  Babylonia  of  about 
500  B.C.  "Lord  of  heaven  and  earth"  occurs.f  The  term  "God 
of  heaven"  is  found  in  the  Eleph.  pap.  Marti  regards  the  ex- 
pression as  the  equivalent  of  the  "high  God,"  or  "God  of  the 
height,"  in  Mi.  6^  and  thinks  it  portrays  the  transcendence  of 
God  (Dodekapropheton,^^^).  The  expression  was  never  com- 
mon among  the  Hebrews.  Stade  explains  it  as  an  adaptation 
to  the  religious  terms  of  the  governing  peoples  (BT.^^^). 

To  build  a  house  for  him  in  Jerusalem].  In  Is.  44^*  we  have 
a  prediction  that  Cyrus  would  direct  the  rebuilding  of  Jeru- 
salem and  of  the  temple.  If  Cyrus  had  been  made  familiar 
with  this  prophecy,  as  Josephus  says,  he  might  easily  see  in  it 
the  commission  to  which  he  here  refers.  The  Chronicler  knew 
that  the  temple  was  not  built  by  Cyrus  or  in  his  lifetime;  it  is, 
therefore,  difficult  to  see  why  he  should  have  invented  a  state- 
ment contrary  to  fact.  The  truth  is  that  the  Chronicler  tried 
to  make  it  appear  that  the  temple  was  begun  under  Cyrus,  and 
was  compelled  to  misconstrue  his  material  in  justification  of  his 
theory. — A  Jewish  writer  would  not  have  deemed  it  necessary 
to  say  Jerusalem  which  is  in  Judah  unless  he  were  endeavouring 
to  give  colour  to  an  imitation  decree,  a  device  in  which  the  Jews 
were  not  expert.  It  appears  from  the  terms  of  the  edict  that 
the  interest  of  Cyrus  was  not  in  the  freedom  of  the  Jews,  but 
in  the  building  of  the  temple  to  the  God  to  whom  he  here  as- 

•  It  is  a  curious  fact,  mention  of  which  has  not  been  observed  by  the  present  writer,  that 
in  Ch.  "  God  of  Israel"  is  used  with  great  regularity  up  to  II  7",  and  after  that  almost  in- 
variably "  God  of  (our)  fathers." 

t  J.  A.  Montgomery,  Mus.  Jour.  U.  P.  Dec.  igio. 


EZRA    I  59 

cribes  his  wonderful  victories.  The  release  of  the  captives  was 
incidental  to  the  main  purpose. — 3.  In  MT.  this  verse  is  cor- 
rupt, so  that  the  sense  has  been  changed. — Among  you]  indicates 
that  the  edict  is  addressed  to  the  whole  people  of  Cyrus's  realm; 
but  the  edict  primarily  concerns  all  his  (Yahweh's)  people.  As 
the  text  stands,  the  edict  enjoins  all  Jews  to  return  to  Jerusalem 
to  build  the  temple;  whereas  in  v.  *  it  is  stated  that  those  only 
went  up  whose  heart  was  stirred  by  Yahweh.  With  hints  found 
in  the  Vrss.  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  the  text,  obtaining  a 
terse  and  lucid  statement  which  might  well  be  a  part  of  a  royal 
decree.  The  restored  text  gives:  whoever  wills  of  all  the  people 
of  Yahweh  the  God  of  Israel,  he  is  the  God  who  dwells  in  Jerusalem, 
now  let  him  go  up  to  Jerusalem  and  build  the  house  of  Yahweh 
his  Cod. 

The  statement  that  Yahweh  is  the  God  who  dwells  in  Jerus.  is  nat- 
ural in  this  text,  Cy.  found  many  gods  in  Bab.  who  had  been  brought 
there  from  other  places,  and  whose  devotees  were  distressed  by  their 
removal.  He  sent  all  these  gods  back  to  their  ancient  shrines.  To 
him  Yahweh  seemed  much  like  the  other  deities.  Further,  according 
to  this  text,  Cy.  did  not  command  all  Jews  to  return;  but  he  permitted 
those  to  go  back  who  desired,  and  thus  the  decree  is  in  harmony  with 
the  statement  of  v. ».  The  amended  text  shows  clearly  that  Cy.'s  main 
object  was  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple. 

4.  The  next  subject  in  the  decree  is  the  provision  of  funds  for 
building  the  temple.  The  implication  of  the  text  is  that  the 
Babylonian  neighbours  of  the  returning  Jews  were  called  upon 
for  contributions.  All  that  survive  covers  the  whole  body  of 
Jews  in  Babylonia,  and  as  they  are  to  be  supported  by  the  men 
of  his  place  these  can  be  no  other  than  the  Babylonians.  Cyrus 
did  all  in  his  power  to  placate  the  conquered  peoples,  and  he 
was  too  politic  to  demand  from  them  subscriptions  to  build  a 
temple  for  the  despised  Jews.  If  we  accept  this  text  we  are 
forced  to  admit  a  powerful  Jewish  colouring.  With  the  help  of 
Esdras  we  are  enabled  to  reconstruct  the  passage  (v.*)  thus; 
and  all  that  dwell  in  the  places,  let  them  support  him.  This  nat- 
urally means  that  the  Jews,  who  dwell  in  the  districts  from 
which  certain  exiles  are  departing,  shall  send  by  their  hands 


6o  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

gifts  for  the  temple.  The  wealthiest  people  would  be  most 
likely  to  remain  for  commercial  reasons,  and  they  are  the  ones 
able  to  contribute  most. — With  silver  and  gold,  goods  and  cattle, 
besides  the  free-will  offerings  for  the  house  of  God]  implies  dona- 
tions for  the  caravan  of  pilgrims  as  well  as  for  the  temple.  We 
might  well  wonder  whether  Cyrus  would  be  concerned  about 
the  people.  The  last  clause  is  different  in  Esd.,  and  with  other 
things  added  by  vows  for  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  implying  that 
all  the  gifts  were  for  the  temple.  Goods  and  cattle  is  probably 
a  gloss. — Which  is  in  Jerusalem]  is  the  translation  of  (S,  but 
Esd.  has  who,  requiring  God  as  antecedent  instead  of  house. 
It  is  not  possible  to  differentiate  in  Hebrew.  The  rendering 
which  tends  to  discredit  the  decree,  as  Cyrus  would  not  order  a 
temple  built  and  in  the  next  sentence  imply  that  it  was  already 
built.  The  rendering  of  Esd.  harmonises  best  with  the  ex- 
pression in  V.  ^,  he  is  the  God  who  is  in  Jerusalem. 

The  edict  of  Cyrus. — There  is  another  version  of  this  edict  in  6'-^ 
claiming  to  be  a  copy  of  an  original  found  at  Ecbatana.  The  two 
Vrss.  dififer  materially.  In  the  Aram,  version  there  is  nothing  about 
Yahweh's  aid  in  Cy.'s  conquests,  the  permission  to  return  to  Jerus.,  or 
the  contributions;  but  plans  are  prescribed  for  the  new  temple,  the 
cost  is  to  be  borne  by  the  royal  treasury,  and  the  return  of  the  sacred 
vessels  is  expressly  enjoined. 

Both  Vrss.  profess  to  be  original,  but  one  or  both  must  be  wrong. 
Few  defend  the  Heb.  version,  though  Dr.,  Ryle,  et  al.  accept  the  sub- 
stance, admitting  a  marked  Jewish  colouring.  Mey.  accepts  the  Aram, 
as  authentic,  and  deems  the  Heb.  a  product  of  the  Chr.  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  why  the  Chr.  should  incorporate  an  authentic  edict,  and 
then  himself  compose  one  so  at  variance  with  his  source,  though  he 
might  easily  insert  two  different  forms  which  he  found  in  the  docu- 
ments he  used.  Mey.  starts  with  the  hypothesis  that  all  the  letters 
and  edicts  in  Ezr.  are  Aram.  Vrss.  of  the  Pers.  originals  {v.  i.  on  4'). 
This  position  has  been  widely  accepted,  apparently  without  much 
critical  sifting.  Torrey  has  shown  its  weakness  (ES.»"  ^■);  indeed,  it 
seems  to  rest  on  little  more  foundation  than  bare  assumption.  We 
are,  therefore,  really  driven  to  purely  internal  evidence.  From  this 
point  of  view  the  Aram,  edict  does  not  commend  itself.  For  Cy.  would 
not  be  chiefly  concerned  with  the  dimensions  of  the  temple,  and  the 
figures  given  are  altogether  improbable.  Nor  would  he  be  likely  to 
order  the  expenses  paid  out  of  the  royal  treasury.  Certainly  the  best 
evidence  we  have,  in  Hg.  and  Zc,  indicates  that  the  cost  was  borne 


EZRA    I  6l 

by  the  Jews  themselves.  Indeed,  the  long  delay  was  accounted  for  on 
the  ground  of  the  people's  inability  in  material  things  (Hg.  i^  f). 

In  the  Heb.  edict,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  note  of  improba- 
bihty,  save  in  the  matter  of  Bab.  contributors,  and  here  the  Chr.  ap- 
parently retouched  the  passage  to  suit  himself  (v.  s.).  The  original 
very  likely  enjoined  the  Jews  who  remained  in  Bab.  to  send  contribu- 
tions by  those  who  returned.  Yet  few  scholars  have  any  good  to  say 
of  this  version.  Sieg.  remarks  that  it  shows  itself  to  be  a  forgery,  since 
it  is  given  in  the  Heb.  tongue,  and  since  it  is  dominated  by  Jewish  re- 
ligious ideas.  Against  this  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  Chr.  would 
scarcely  incorporate  the  Pers.  or  Bab.  original.  Moreover,  since  the 
edict  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  Jews,  it  may  have  been  originally  issued 
in  Heb.  As  to  the  Jewish  conceptions,  they  do  not  seem  to  be  any 
more  marked  than  we  should  expect.  To  pacify  the  Bab.,  Cy.  writes 
in  his  inscription  with  pronounced  Bab.  religious  ideas;  why  should  he 
not  do  the  same  thing  for  the  Jews  ? 

It  is  difficult  to  think  that  the  Chr.  composed  the  edict  at  all.  Save 
in  V.  *  it  does  not  seem  to  have  any  of  his  peculiar  characteristics.  If 
he  had  invented  it,  he  certainly  would  have  followed  his  Aram,  source 
in  c.  6,  to  which  he  could  have  had  no  earthly  objection.  To  be  con- 
sistent with  his  policy  Cy.  must  have  allowed  the  Jews  to  return  and 
to  rebuild  their  temple  and  to  take  back  any  treasures  which  had  been 
taken  from  it.  Nikel  notes  that  "'may  his  God  be  with  him'  has  a 
genuine  Bab.  tinge"  (PS.").  The  Chr.  would  not  have  said  "  he  is  the 
God  who  is  in  Jerus.,"  nor  would  he  have  explained  that  Jerus.  was  in 
Judah;  and  he  never  calls  Yahweh  "  the  God  of  heaven."  It  is  very 
doubtful  if  he  would  have  exalted  Cy.  as  this  document  does.  On 
the  whole,  then,  there  seems  to  be  ample  reason  for  asserting  that  Cy. 
did  give  the  Jews  permission  to  return  and  to  rebuild  the  temple.  The 
emended  text  which  I  have  proposed  confirms  the  belief  that  we  may 
have  an  authentic  document  here.  It  is  true  that  Hg.  and  Zc.  make 
no  reference  to  this  decree,  and  it  would  have  served  their  purpose 
well;  but  they  were  speaking  a  score  of  years  later,  and  were  con- 
cerned more  with  the  will  of  God  than  with  the  will  of  a  dead  king. 

1.  The  conj.  i,  with  which  the  book  begins,  is  explained  by  the 
original  connection  of  Ezr.  with  Ch.  (Berth.  Sieg.).  But  Ex.  Lv. 
Nu.  Jos.  Ju.  I  and  2  S.  i  and  2  K.  Ruth,  Est.  2  Ch.  and  Ne.  (dis- 
regarding the  title)  also  begin  with  1.  It  seems  to  be  the  rule  to  be- 
gin a  Heb.  narrative  with  the  conj. — njc]  st.  cstr.  before  a  prep.  (c/. 
Ges.^  130). — ty-iio]  Pers.  KftruS,  Bab.  KtiraS,  whence  Rawlinson  would 
point  v-\p. — We  must  rd.  m'??'?]  since  nji  is  the  obj.  The  mng.  lo 
fulfil  a  prediction  is  not  found  elsw.,  but  the  context  requires  that  sense 
here;  cf.  2  Ch.  36=',  where  niNSoS  has  the  same  mng. — ■'sa]  2  Ch.  36== 
has  iflJ,  preferred  by  Guthe,  Torrey,  et  al.  Esd.  lv  oTdtAocTt,  but  05 
supports  MT.     Both  forms  are  common,  but  •'od  is  better  when  utter- 


62  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ance  is  implied  (so  Ryle). — nn  T'^jh],  only  in  late  writers,  v.',  Hg. 
i'<  I  Ch.  5"  2  Ch.  2i>«;  but  vb.  alone  has  same  mng.  in  Is.  41'-  "  45", 
all  referring  to  Cy.,  and  influencing  our  author  {cf.  Mar.  Jes.  on  41'). 
— Vip-nayi]  lit.  he  caused  a  voice  to  pass  over,  an  oral  proclamation, 
Ex.  36*  (P);  cf.  "  he  caused  a  trumpet  to  pass  over,"  i.  e.,  to  be  blown, 
Lv.  25».  That  is  the  sense  here  as  we  note  from  the  added  and  also 
in  writing.  In  2  Ch.  30'  the  term  is  used  where  runners  carry  letters 
from  Hezekiah. — anoD^]  would  mean  here  in  a  written  form,  as  (K^ 
(in  2  Ch.  36=2)  lv  X6-]foc<;  ypa^^?,  but  this  sense  is  not  found  elsw. 
As  the  words  are  unnecessary  and  as  "icnV  goes  back  to  the  proclama- 
tion we  suspect  a  gl. 

2.  "h  jnj  noS^c]  Obj.  first  for  emph.  Ges.* '« '•  Esd.  I[il  dvlSec^sv 
paatX^a,  3  Esd.  me  constituit  regent,  RV.  "hath  made  me  king,"  better 
proclaimed  me  king.  After  Esd.  i^^- "  =  2  Ch.  36'-  *  this  expression 
would  represent  ■'jD^Ssn,  lacking  So  and  jnj.  The  mng.  is  not  the  same, 
as  this  text  would  be  based  on  a  phophecy,  and  MT.  on  the  result 
of  a  conquest.  Esd.  shows  a  text  more  closely  associated  with  the 
prophecies  in  Is.^. — a'Dcn  ^nSx  mni]  Esd.  xipio?  [+  b  6ebq^,  xupios'^] 
Tou  'lapaTjX  y.ijptoi;  6  uyta-roi;.  This  suggests  onD  ^hSn  as  in  Mi.  6*. 
Guthe  follows  this  text,  but  it  may  well  be  a  Jewish  amplification — 
H^rt^].  The  use  of  the  pron.  emphasises  the  fact  of  Yahweh's  directing 
Cy.  to  build  the  house. — ^'"'y  npe]  usually  means  to  bring  upon,  or  visit 
upon,  i.  e.,  punishment;  there  are,  however,  several  passages,  mostly 
late,  in  which  the  sense  required  here  is  found,  i.  e.,  assigned  to  me. 
Esd.  renders  Ij-^txijvgv  5x01,  he  has  given  me  a  sign,  prob.  by  the  word 
of  his  prophet,  showing  again  a  closer  dependence  upon  Is.' ;  la-^[jLT)vev, 
however,  usually  represents  >nn,  shout.  In  Is.  442*  Cy.  is  called  ^P">, 
and  in  view  of  the  close  relationship  of  that  passage  to  our  text,  it  is 
tempting  to  propose  here  'rpin,  he  has  made  me  shepherd. 

3.  This  v.  is  obscure  and  difficult.  D33  barely  admits  of  interpre- 
tation. The  sf.  in  icy  and  vnVs  refer,  one  to  Yahweh  and  the  other  to 
^D,  a  dub.  construction;  the  phrase  may  his  God  be  with  him  is  in  an 
awkward  place;  the  Chr.  has  nini  for  'ri'';  the  last  clause  is  superfluous 
where  it  stands;  and  which  is  in  Judah  is  tautologous  after  v. ».  Turn- 
ing to  the  Vrss.  we  find  in  modem  editions  of  <S  that  the  first  clause  is 
an  interrogative,  Who  is  there  among  you  of  all  his  people  ?  For  ^n>  (S  has 
7.al  la-rat;  hy>y  is  dva^^acTat^*,  dva^TjTu^.  ®^  ends  with  nS^'n^S.  ■*■ 
lacks  ni,T>  after  t\-<2.  <S^  adds  \i.ix'  aO-coij  at  end  of  v.  In  Esd.  we  find 
uyiuv  for  022  instead  of  lv  uixlv  as  (6.  vn-jx  appears  as  xupio<;  aOxou  in 
^,  showing  an  original  nini;  in  ^  xuptoi;  is  repeated;  in  ^  we  have 
xupios  without  the  pron.  following.  The  last  clause  is  rendered  ouxbi; 
6  xuptoc;  6  xaTctCTXTjvwaa?  lv  'IspouaaX-rjiA.  This  clause  is  lacking  in  ^, 
but  most  of  it  appears  earlier  in  the  v.  ^  is  quite  divergent  in  the 
first  part  thus:  tI?  o5v  IotIv  uixwv  ex  tou  ISvouc  aurou  5?  zpoOutislTat 
Tou    TTOpeuO^voti;    SaTw  6   xupto?  p.sT*  auToG   h  xaTaaxTjvowa?  5v  'lepou- 


EZRA    I  63 

aaX^j[A,  %cd  dva^a?  x.  t,  X.  Here  we  note  a  part.  oOv  {^^  et  .  .  .  oOv), 
really  necessary  to  the  sense,  and  the  verbs  icpoOutxEiTat  and  xaTaa- 
XTjvwaaq,  which  are  not  in  Heb.  3  Esd.  has  also  a  peculiar  and  brief 
text,  viz.,  si  quis  est  ex  genere  vestro,  Dominus  ipsiiis  ascendat  cum 
eo  in  Jerus.  Among  you  is  lacking,  but  there  is  a  faint  reflection 
in  the  your  people  instead  of  his.  The  superfluous  which  is  in  Jiidah 
fails  here  as  in  Esd.^,  which  appears  in  ^  only  as  an  adj.  x^v  'Iou8a(av. 
The  commentators  mostly  ignore  the  difficulty,  though  Berth,  after 
Guthe  favours  restoration  of  xpoOutAstTat  as  making  the  permit  less 
general,  and  regards  the  last  clause  as  "  an  intentional  imitation  of  the 
style  of  the  foreign  king."  Guthe  regards  the  last  words  as  a  gl., 
noting  their  change  of  place  in  Esd.^.  He  wrongly  says  in  05^  also, 
for  (&^  has  the  clause  in  same  place  as  MT.  with  \i.zx'  auxou  added. 
For  TcpoButxelTat  toij  xopeuOfivac  Guthe  proposes  nsS'?  J^J^D^  (or  aijni), 
and  xpoGuiAeuxat  invariably  represents  3ijnn;  but.  unless  one  dis- 
regards MT.  altogether,  it  is  impossible  to  extract  this  word.  We 
have  not  far  to  go,  however,  to  find  a  word  closer  to  the  text,  for  nna 
suits  the  sense,  and  might  easily  be  corrupted  to  ddj.  idj?  is  obviously 
impossible,  but  the  moment  we  make  the  necessary  changes  of  ''Hi  to 
nin>,  it  follows  that  we  must  rd.  '•aj?,  or  possibly  dj;.  In  the  first  case 
we  have  only  the  common  change  of  ^  to  1;  in  the  latter  ■>  was  attached 
to  the  vb.  when  T\yr\^  was  changed  to  "'H''  (z).  CS,  cited  above),  and  was 
moved  back  to  the  n.  If  the  pi.  was  original  the  mng.  was  prac- 
tically tribes  or  clans.  Perhaps  there  was  enough  discord  among  the 
Bab.  Jews  to  make  Cy.  think  that  many  peoples  worshipped  Yahweh. 
Then  to  get  a  suitable  text  we  must  presume  that  two  lines  were 
transposed:  rd.  people  of  Y.  the  G.  of  Is.,  he  is  the  God  who  dwells 
in  Jerus.,  a  change  supported  by  Esd.^.  This  clause  then  bears  no 
marks  of  a  gl.,  nor  of  an  attempt  to  imitate  Cy.,  but  is  a  necessary 
definition  to  be  exact  in  an  edict,  la'x  is  corrected  after  Esd.  to  pa'n. 
mino  "ityx  is  prob.  an  accidental  repetition  from  the  preceding  v.;  it 
is  certainly  unnecessary  here.  rnSs'  fits  admirably  after  nin>  n^a. 
The  whole  v.  then  I  would  restore  thus:  •'hSk  mni  oy-Sro  -^nb  pS  id 

It  is  granted  that  this  result  requires  considerable  changes,  but  the 
Vrss.  show  that  correction  is  necessary.  As  frequently  happens  in 
these  books,  ^  preserves  some  original  features,  which,  as  usual,  are 
obscured  by  corrections  to  conform  to  MT.,  corrections  fortunately 
mostly  by  addition,  so  that  the  original  may  still  be  picked  out. — 
4.  This  v.  is  not  much  clearer.  The  involvement  is  so  great  that 
translation  is  almost  impossible.  Moreover,  the  Vrss.  again  show  de- 
partures which  can  hardly  be  due  to  the  freedom  of  a  translator,  and 
the  Gk.  renderings  elsw.  in  these  books  show  close  fidelity  to  their 
original.  (S  proper  shows  mostly  the  surviving  MT.  But  Esd.^  has 
some  good    material.     That   text   has   xal   oooc   xaxa   -udxoui;   oJxoiJct 


64  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

PoTj6e{x(«)ffav  aOxw  ■xpoOuyiefaBuaav  Ttp  xupfcp  ^v  -rcj)  t6x(i)  auTou  Iv  xpu'jftp 
X.  T.  X.  3  Esd.  quotquot  ergo  circa  loca  habitant  adjuvent  eos  qui  sunt 
in  loco  ipso.  We  note  that  the  perplexing  ij'B'j  is  lacking  and  that 
"ij  becomes  the  leading  vb.;  in  this  respect  ^^  agree.  '•a'JN  is  lack- 
ing while  iDipc  has  a  new  connection.  A  new  vb.  is  introduced.  This 
may  represent  impna  nin^'?  -taijn'j  v^nvy  niDipoa  D''-)jn-S3\  This  is 
a  vast  improvement  over  MT.  and  shows  an  earlier  and  better  text. 
It  is  prob.  not  original,  but  is  more  primitive  than  MT.  In  the 
list  of  gifts  (6^  has  Supwv  for  naijn,  toO  lxoua{ou^^.  cii^ai  =  Iv  Soae- 
otv  [leO'  Yxxwv  xal  xtt]vwv  in  Esd.,  so  3  Esd.  This  would,  perhaps,  be 
nnnai  iyoToy  enoia.  Guthe  corrects  b'13i  to  tt'sn,  but  ignores  B6a£(Jtv. 
naijn-Dj?  is  in  (S^  (xeTa  Stopwv  =  D^inj-Dj,',  and  more  fully  in  Esd.  ouv 
tot?  (SXXot?  Tol?  xax'  euxfi?  xpoaTsOsttilvoti;.  This  is  found  in  3  Esd. 
too,  and  may  be  a  priestly  amplification,  though  it  more  likely  shows 
a  different  text,  "ib'n  is  rendered  in  (S  with  DTiSvn  as  antecedent,  but 
in  Esd.  with  7^2.  With  the  emendations  proposed  above,  based  on 
Esd.,  the  edict  as  a  whole  runs  thus:  All  Die  kingdoms  of  the  world  has 
Yahweh  the  God  of  heaven  given  me,  and  he  has  charged  me  to  build  him 
a  house  in  Jerus.  which  is  in  Judah :  therefore  whoever  wills  of  all  the 
people  of  Yahweh  the  God  of  Israel,  he  is  the  God  whose  abode  is  in  Jems., 
now  let  him  go  up  and  build  the  house  of  Yahweh  his  God.  And  all  that 
dwell  in  the  places  let  them  support  him,  and  make  free-will  oj'erings  to 
Yahweh,  with  silver  and  gold  and  with  the  free-will  oferings  for  the  house 
of  God  who  is  in  Jerus. 

If  the  above  be  the  original  form,  many  of  the  objections  urged  against 
the  edict  are  removed,  although  the  emendations  were  not  made  with 
that  end  in  view.  Esd.^  certainly  had  no  such  purpose.  It  appears 
that  the  decree  was  not  issued  to  the  whole  Bab.  nation,  but  only  to 
the  Jews.  Cy.  would  hardly  proclaim  to  the  Bab.  that  his  conquests 
were  due  to  Yahweh  and  thus  contradict  his  inscription.  But  he 
might  have  said  this  to  the  Jews.  Moreover,  the  Jewish  element  in 
Bab.  fifty  years  after  the  fall  of  Jerus.  must  have  been  comparatively 
insignificant.  There  would  be  no  use  of  a  national  proclamation  to 
authorise  their  release. 

ixcjn]  might  easily  mean  those  who  are  left  behind,  i.  e.,  in  Bab.  (cf. 
Ex.  lo^s  Nu.  11^");  but  it  means  also  those  who  survive,  a  remnant,  being 
equivalent  to  nnNS'  {cf.  Ne.  i^f). — ij]  always  refers  to  a  temporary 
rather  than  a  permanent  residence  and  shows  that  the  Jews  regarded 
their  stay  in  exile  as  transient. — inNSf j^]  from  lift  or  carry  the  mng. 
support  or  assist  is  naturally  derived,  a  sense  found  also  in  8'«  Est.  9' 
I  K.  9". — cion]  is  a  very  comprehensive  term  covering  personal  prop- 
erty of  any  kind,  including  cattle.  It  is  rather  a  general  term  for  an 
edict.  What  it  is  intended  to  comprise  here  it  is  impKJSsible  to  say. 
The  word  occurs  only  in  P  and  other  late  sources,  and  is  prob.  a  loan- 
word from  Bab.  rukidu.  It  occurs  curiously  5  t.  in  Gn.  14,  the  story 
of  Abraham's  campaign  against  the  kings  of  the  East. 


EZRA    I  65 

5-11.  Gifts  for  the  temple. — The  decree  havmg  been  issued, 
the  next  step  is  to  put  it  into  effect,  and  this  is  immediately 
undertaken.  The  people  prepare  to  depart;  contributions  are 
secured;  and  the  sacred  vessels,  of  which  the  temple  had  been 
plundered  a  half  century  before,  are  returned  by  Cyrus. 

In  a  part  of  this  passage  at  least  the  Chr.'s  hand  is  manifest.  The 
vv.  which  come  from  his  hand,'-  '•  =-"^,  really  add  nothing  in  the  way 
of  historical  information. 

5.  Aitd  arose  to  go  up].  Dip  is  often  used  as  here  in  a  sense 
like  prepared.  Three  classes  are  mentioned,  the  chiefs,  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites,  the  last  two  being  separate  classes  as 
in  P,  no  longer  identical  as  in  Dt. — The  heads  of  the  fathers], 
i.  e.,  the  chiefs  of  the  clans,  an  expression  occurring  frequently 
in  P  and  the  Chronicler  (BDB.).  Fathers  in  these  passages 
has  the  sense  of  family  or  clan.  It  is  an  abbreviation  of  "house 
of  the  fathers,"  which  naturally  means  family. — Of  Judah  and 
Benjamin].  These  two  tribes  are  named  as  the  elements  out  of 
which  postexilic  Israel  is  composed  (cf.  41  Ne.  11*).  In  other 
books  we  find  the  same  combination  (i  K.  12^^  i  Ch.  12^^  2  Ch. 
11^2).  In  the  last-named  passage  we  have  the  definite  state- 
ment that  Benjamin  as  well  as  Judah  adhered  to  Rehoboam 
after  the  revolt  of  the  northern  tribes.  The  boundary  between 
the  two  kingdoms  was  never  very  sharply  defined,  and  as  Jeru- 
salem was  on  the  Benjamite  border,  it  would  be  natural  that 
this  tribe  should  for  the  most  part  cast  in  its  fortunes  with  the 
south.  There  were,  therefore,  Benjamites  as  well  as  Judeans 
m  Babylonia. — All  whose  spirit  God  stirred  up].  This  is  inter- 
preted in  exactly  opposite  senses.  B.-Rys.  finds  a  fourth  class 
of  Jews,  as  if  it  read  "and  all  others  whose  spirit  God  stirred 
up."  But  that  implies  that  the  leaders  alone  went  of  their 
own  accord,  and  others  only  as  they  were  moved  of  God. 
The  Chronicler  shows  in  c.  2  that  his  primary  interest  is  in  the 
leaders,  lay  and  ecclesiastical.  It  is,  therefore,  better  to  con- 
strue the  clause  as  a  case  of  apposition  limiting  the  preceding, 
so  that  the  sense  is  that  not  all  the  chiefs,  priests,  and  Levites 
left  Babylonia,  but  only  those  whom  God  moved  to  go  up  to 


66  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

build  the  temple  (so  Sieg.).  In  v.  ^  it  was  Yahweh  who  stirred 
the  spirit  of  Cyrus;  here  God  moves  the  people.  The  former 
name  may  be  due  to  the  influence  of  Is.-;  the  latter  is  the 
Chronicler's  usual  term.  The  Chronicler  says  ''house  of  Yah- 
weh," but  that  is  a  technical  term.* 

6.  And  all  their  neighbors],  equivalent  to  the  men  of  his  place 
in  v."*,  and  referring  to  the  Jews  whose  spirit  was  not  moved 
to  go  to  Jerusalem.  The  use  of  all  indicates  that  every  neigh- 
bour of  the  returning  exiles  made  an  offering  for  the  temple. 
— Strengthened  their  hands],  literally,  put  strength  in  their  hands, 
is  a  common  expression  in  Hebrew  for  "encourage,"  Ju.  9^* 
Is.  35^  Ezr.  (P'  Ne.  2^^  6*.  There  is  no  other  case  where  it  refers 
to  material  support,  and  yet  that  would  be  the  most  natural 
meaning.  The  list  of  gifts  should  be  exactly  the  same  as  in 
v.  ■•.  Here  we  have  vessels  of  silver,  choice  things,  a  new  element, 
and  a  different  expression  for  the  free-will  offerings.  We  have 
seen  evidence  of  textual  errors  in  v.  ^  and  there  may  be  more 
of  it  here.  Vessels,  which  is  not  found  in  v.  ^,  is  certainly  an  er- 
ror creeping  in  from  v. ''. — 7.  Now  King  Cyrus  had  brought  out]. 
The  unusual  order,  subject  preceding  verb,  brings  out  the  fact 
of  an  attendant  circumstance  rather  than  a  chronological  se- 
quence. The  delivery  of  the  temple  vessels  did  not  necessarily 
follow  the  gathering  of  a  caravan  and  the  collection  of  sub- 
scriptions, but  may  have  been  coincident  with  the  issue  of  the 
decree.  Indeed,  in  the  Aramaic  version  (6^)  the  surrender  of 
these  vessels  was  a  part  of  Cyrus's  original  order. — Vessels].  *h'2 
means  vessels  or  implements.  The  list  shows  that  both  are 
meant  here.  English  has  no  single  word  to  cover  both  suita- 
bly, though  utensils  approximates  the  requirement.  Nebuchad- 
rezzar had  plundered  the  temple  each  time  he  captured  Jerusa- 
lem, in  598  B.C.  (2  K.  24")  and  586  B.C.  {ib.  25'^  ^■). — And 
placed  them  in  the  house  of  his  God],  as  trophies  of  victory  and  as 
tokens  of  the  superiority  of  his  god.  Similarly  the  ark  had  been 
placed  in  the  temple  of  Dagon  (i  S.  5^).  The  temple  in  Jerusa- 
lem probably  had  such  treasures  from  the  shrines  of  conquered 

•  G.  A.  Smith  notes  that  in  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.  "  Sion  "  is  not  found,  but  the  phrase  "  house 
of  God  which  is  in  Jems."  occurs  often  to  describe  the  temple  site  (Jer.  i,'"). 


EZRA    I  67 

nations.  "The  things  which  David  his  father  had  dedicated" 
(2  Ch.  5O,  which  were  put  in  the  temple  by  Solomon,  were  doubt- 
less booty  from  David's  wars.  In  Esd.  we  have  in  his  house 
of  idols,  showing  the  narrower  Jewish  conception  of  the  Baby- 
lonian temple. — 8.  By  the  hand  of  Mithredath  the  treasurer]. 
Mithredath,  or,  as  it  is  better  known  in  the  Greek  form, 
Mithredates,  is  a  Persian  name.  In  the  time  of  Xerxes  there 
was  a  Persian  officer  of  Syria  bearing  this  name  (4^).  He  must 
have  been  the  treasurer  of  the  temple,  since  he  is  intrusted  with 
the  disposition  of  the  property  of  the  sanctuary. — And  he  counted 
them].  The  subject  must  be  "Mithredath,"  though  a  strict  con- 
struction would  require  "Cyrus."  The  verb  has  a  pregnant 
sense,  the  full  meaning  being,  he  counted  them  as  he  delivered  them 
to  Sheshbazzar. 

Shes.  has  often  been  identified  with  Zer.  The  motive  was  largely 
apologetic,  and  yet  there  is  this  textual  evidence,  that  in  the  Aram, 
document  (5'*"")  Shes.  is  said  to  have  laid  the  foundation  of  the  tem- 
ple, whereas  in  later  parts  of  this  book  as  well  as  in  Hg.  and  Zc,  Zer.  is 
the  temple-builder.  Again,  it  may  be  urged  that  Shes.  disappears 
completely  after  c.  i,  and  in  c.  3  Zer.  appears  as  leader  without  any 
intr.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Aram,  document  describes  the  work  of 
Zer.  and  speaks  of  Shes.  as  an  earlier  leader,  as  he  undoubtedly  was. 
The  fact  is  that  there  is  a  gap  between  c.  i  and  c.  3.  Indeed,  the  his- 
tory in  these  books  is  not  continuous,  but  fragmentary,  as  evidenced 
by  the  fact  that  there  is  no  hint  about  the  death  of  any  of  the  leaders, 
nor  even  of  the  close  of  their  rule. 

9  f .  According  to  our  text  the  list  of  utensils  comprises  30 
golden  vessels,  1,000  silver  vessels,  29  censers,  30  golden  bowls,  410 
silver  bowls,  1,000  other  utensils,  2,499  in  all,  a  surprisingly  large 
number,  yet  in  v.  "  the  total  is  given  as  5,400,  the  sort  of  dis- 
crepancy commonly  found  in  such  hsts. 

In  Esd.  we  find  a  larger  total,  5,469,  and  the  itemised  figures  agree 
with  this,  the  only  consistent  text,  and  therefore  accepted  by  Nikel. 
But  the  agreement  of  the  total  with  the  separate  items  may  be  artificial. 
There  is  a  list  of  articles  taken  from  the  temple  in  586  B.C.  (2  K.  25"  '•), 
but  no  numbers  are  given.  Some  of  the  words  used  here  do  not  occur 
clsw.,  and  it  is  difficult  to  identify  the  objects  confidently.  Doubtless 
the  Solomonic  temple  contained  many  votive  offerings  of  gold  and 
silver  which  were  of  little  use. 


68  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

11.  The  whole  Sheshbazzar  took  up].  He  was  not  only  the 
receiver  of  the  temple  treasures,  but  the  leader  of  an  expedition, 
known  as  the  golah,  which  went  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem. 
— Golah  properly  means  exile,  but  it  has  also  a  figurative  sense, 
a  company  of  exiles,  and  that  is  the  meaning  here.  It  is  used 
constantly  in  these  books  as  a  national  name  (Kue.  Ahh^^^^-), 
and  that  use  is  responsible  for  the  erroneous  idea  that  the  post- 
exilic  community  was  made  up  entirely  of  those  who  had  come 
from  Babylonia. 

The  c.  ends  abruptly  and  the  story  is  incomplete.  Torrey  professes 
to  have  restored  the  missing  section  (ES.^s  ff).  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
recovered  material  serves  far  better  as  an  intr.  to  c.  3,  and  is  fully  dis- 
cussed in  that  connection.  Pretty  nearly  all  the  stories  in  these  books 
end  abruptly. 

5.  ni2Nn  irNi]  is  a  technical  term  occurring  often  in  P  and  Ch.  The 
full  but  less  frequent  form  (see  Dn.  on  Ex.  6"-  ")  is  "nh  no  '-1,  heads  of 
the  fathers^  house,  and  therefore  chiefs  of  clans. — S3S]  The  prep,  is  ex- 
plained by  Haupt  as  an  emph.  part,  like  the  Ar.  and  Bab.  use  (Johns 
Hopkins  circulars,  XIII,  No.  114,  Ges.^^'").  Such  a  foreign  influence 
is  unlikely  in  Ch.  and  a  nearer  explanation  is  possible  since  the  writer 
may  have  been  influenced  by  the  V  with  niin\  Torrey  explains  in 
sense  of  "namely,"  calling  it  a  characteristic  of  Ch.  (ES."'- "■ ')•  The 
clause  is  rel.,  "ic'n  being  omitted  as  it  frequently  is  (cf.  Dav.  Syn. 
§i44r6)_ — 6.  Din3''2D]  properly  means  surrotinding  places,  but  in  both 
m.  and  f.  there  are  cases  where  surrounding  people  is  the  true  sense,  m. 
Ps.  7612898  Je.  48"";  f.,Ps.  44i^Ez.  16"  28=4  Dn.  9".— anno]  the  only 
case  where  a  prep,  is  used  in  this  phrase,  though  Lv.  25'^  is  very  similar, 
but  this  is  the  sole  instance  where  material  support  is  meant.  Torrey 
regards  it  as  a  mere  copyist's  error. — 103  •'Soa]  cannot  be  right;  vessels 
would  be  appropriate  below  in  connection  with  the  temple,  and  this 
list  must  originally  have  agreed  exactly  with  that  in  v.  *.  Esd.  reads 
lv  Tcaatv  ev  ipYupt'tp  =  1^33  ^22,  putting  So  in  app.  with  the  rest  of 
v.  This  text  is  accepted  by  Guthe,  Kittel,  et  al.  The  mng.  would 
then  be:  supported  them  tenth  everything  [named  in  the  above  decree, 
viz.]  with  silver,  etc. — 2f^D•\2]  Esd.  2'  txxot?  =  iron. — mnjDai]  Esd.^^ 
xal  £u%ats  w<;  xXefaxai?  ToXkdiv  wv  6  voO?  ijfigQ-q,  Esd.^  euxalq  xX.  wv 
iQyipOTj  6  voQs  euOiJi;.  laS  has  been  rd.  as  22^  not  2^h  as  Guthe  sug- 
gests. Torrey  calls  Guthe's  change  indispensable  (ES.'"-  °-  °).  The 
passage  is  pretty  corrupt,  but  the  sense  of  this  text  is  good,  mith  the 
numerous  votive  offerings  of  many  whose  heart  was  stirred. — 7.  N^sin^]  CS 
^Xa^sv,  Esd.  (jLET-^yaYsv^  (AST'^vsyxs'^^,  both  texts  testifying  to  a  different 
word  from  Nixim. — Guthe  and  Kittel  suggest  -con  on  basis  of  Esd. 


EZRA    I  69 

Torrey  with  greater  probability  proposes  Non. — 8.  Before  t""*^]?]  (6^ 
has  eSwxsv,  Esd.  •rcapiSwx.ev,  and  Sieg.  accordingly  adds  djp'i.  In 
326.  33  ;ve  have  T'^Sj?  Spif ,  a  better  expression,  but  our  text  may  be  in- 
terpreted as  a  pregnant  expression,  and  <8  may  be  only  an  effort  at 
clearness.  The  equiv.  of  T-Sy  occurs  in  Tell-Amarna  Tablet  No.  72. 
n^3  has  same  sense  in  Gn.  32". — larjn]  QJ  did  not  understand  the  word 
and  transliterates  as  a  n.  p.,  Taa^apiQvou^  FapPapYivoG^,  Yotvl^a^pafou'-; 
Esd.  T(p  lauTou  •(a.'C,Q(fu\av.t.  (6  is  apparently  influenced  by  Bab.  form 
ganzabaru  (Peiser,  ZAW.  xvii,'").  The  word  occurs  elsw.  only  in  B. 
Aram.  721;  it  is  originally  Pers.,  though  occurring  also  in  Bab.  (see 
Mey.  EntJ^*,  and  other  references  in  Ges.). 

9.  •'StaiJN]  occurs  only  in  this  v.  The  mng.  and  derivation  are  both 
tmknown  {v.  Sta.  Heb.  G.  §  '^*^< ').  (&  has  t^uxT^pet;^^,  a  word  not  elsw, 
found  in  (&.  The  mng.  winecoolers,  or  cool  places,  is  impossible  here. 
Esd.  reads  aicovSela.  This  is  OJ's  word  for  nicp,  Ex.  25=9  3716  Nu.  4'  i  Ch. 
281 ',  which  means  some  vessel  for  holding  liquid,  and  in  those  cases 
was  made  of  gold;  flagon  may  therefore  be  the  right  mng.  Torrey  de- 
rives •'Sbijn  from  Gk.  xpaxiQp,  bowl. — o-s'^nD]  a.  X.  The  mng.  usually 
given  here  is  knives,  based  on  derivation  from  iSn,  but  n'^n  does  not 
have  the  assumed  mng.  of  hore  {v.  Moore's  Ju.  on  5=*))  a^nd  the  primary 
office  of  a  knife  is  to  cut  not  to  bore.  In  the  Talmud  nis^Sn  means 
knives.  Esd.  has  Guiaxat  dpyupai,  silver  pans.  ©utaxT^  is  the  regular  Gk. 
rendering  of  13,  which  is  in  the  list  of  vessels  carried  from  the  temple 
in  586  (2  K.  25"),  and  elsw.  of  temple  vessels.  Torrey  proposes  DinpSn 
"  snuffers." — 10.  iidd]  elsw.  only  in  i  Ch.  28",  but  6  t.  in  this  v.  and 
Ezr.  8";  the  mng.  is  plainly  bowl. — cjii'D]  RV.  of  a  second  sort  is  im- 
possible, since  no  other  silver  bowls  are  mentioned.  Guthe  leaves  a 
blank  in  his  text,  but  Esd.  confirms  the  suspicion  that  the  word  is  a 
corrupted  nimaeral.  Esd.  has  2,410  (3,410^).  These  silver  bowls  would 
naturally  be  very  numerous,  and  therefore  o^sS"?  should  prob.  be  sub- 
stituted. Torrey  reads  o^jiv  d^'d'tn,  but  there  is  no  other  case  of  the 
dual  d^sVn  with  a  numeral. — 11.  V — S]  like  As.  lu — In  =  both — and  (v. 
Qes.§i««). — rhMTi  .  .  Ssn]  Esd.  dvY^vixOtj  Se  b%h  SafJiavaffaipou  a[ia 
Toiq  ex  "zr^q  aExtJ^aXwafa?.  So  Guthe  emends  in  part  to  otynn  D'^'^iyn. 
The  mng.  is  the  same,  but  Esd.'s  expression  is  better,  these  were  carried 
from  Bab.  to  Jems,  by  Shcs.  together  with  those  from  the  captivity.  Esd.'- 
has  a  different  reading  of  whole  v. :  Ta  3e  xdv-ra  axeutj  xpiJ^«  ^'^^  apyupa 
lxo[ji.ta6Y)  uxb  X.  t.  X.  There  is  no  total  number  mentioned,  and  so  a 
little  more  emph.  is  laid  on  the  transportation.  This  puts  us  on  the 
track  of  what  the  original  text  of  Esd.  must  have  been,  since  ^^  be- 
gins T<i  Ss  xdvxa  cxeuYj  ixofjifaOTj  and  then  adds  gold  and  silver  and  a 
number.  Having  done  this  another  vb.  must  be  introduced,  as  avTjvix^ij. 
Esd.  then  originally  had  merely  all  the  vessels  were  carried  from  Bab. 
to  Jerus.  by  Shes.  and  those  from  the  captivity. 

Shes.  i«  "  51^  "''t-  The  Heb.  form  of  the  name  is  always  the  same 


70  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ixaB'tr.  But  the  Vrss.  show  great  diversity.  B  has  Sassahasar  in 
Ezr.,  and  Salmanasarus  in  Esd.  (S  has  these  forms:  (i)  Bayaaosp^ 
5",  (2)  Sap^ayapB  51^^  (3)  SaPavotsatp^  i'  (^  lacks  the  name  in  !")> 
(4)  Sapo!aapTj<;^  always  in  Ezr.,  (5)  Sapavaaaapo?^  Esd.  6",  (6)  Saaa- 
PaXauaapo?^  always  in  Esd.,  (7)  Saaapaaaotpoc'^  always  in  Ezr.,  (8) 
SavafJiaaaapoi;^  Esd.  2",  (9)  2]a[JLavaaaapo<;^  Esd.  2'^,  (10)  SavaPaffaapo(;^ 
Esd.  6"  '^  always  in  Esd. 

It  is  clear  that  (i)  and  (2)  are  the  same,  sar  being  in  one  case  initial, 
in  the  other  final;  and  that  (8)  and  (9)  are  the  same,  the  [jl  and  v  being 
transposed.  In  fact,  the  forms  (3),  (8),  (9),  (10)  are  easily  reducible 
to  one,  and  that  should  prob.  be  Savapaaaapo?.  It  will  be  noted  also 
that  ■'^^B.  have  only  two  forms,  one  in  Ezr.,  the  other  in  Esd.  By 
transposition  of  letters  these  texts  agree  with  the  Heb.  in  Ezr.,  t.  c, 
Sassabasar,  but  they  disagree  in  Esd.  It  is  generally  held  that  the 
name  is  Bab.,  and  may  be  SamaS-bil-uzur  or  Sin-bal-uzur  (v.  Selhie,  DB. 
art.  "Shes."  KAT.^-  ='«).  The  question  is  therefore  one  of  reading  aaq 
as  Shemesh,  or  aav  for  Sin.  It  is  difficult  to  identify  Sin-bal-uzur  with 
nsaa'B',  therefore  the  former  would  be  preferable;  but  if  Shes.  is  the 
same  person  as  Shenazzar,  then  the  latter  is  better,  and  both  Heb. 
names  are  a  corruption  of  "i??Jp,  represented  in  several  forms  of  Gk, 
of  which  No.  10  is  the  most  original. 

Shes.  has  been  regarded  as  a  Jew,  as  a  Pers.,  as  identical  with  Zer., 
with  Shenazzar,  and  as  an  independent  personage.  Schroeder  held 
that  he  was  a  Pers.  officer,  sent  to  secure  the  safety  of  the  caravan 
(c/.  B.-Rys.  Kue.  Abh^^"^).  He  was  almost  certainly  a  Jew.  Bab. 
names  were  often  given  to  Jewish  children  in  Bab.  (c/.  Clay,  Light  jr. 
Babel,*"^,  Daiches,  Jews  in  Bab.).  Cy.  would  not  have  sent  a  Pers. 
in  charge  of  the  sacred  vessels,  for  his  policy  was  to  pacify,  not  to 
irritate.  The  Chr.  would  not  call  a  foreigner  "prince  of  Judah,"  a 
distinctive  Heb.  title  often  applied  to  kings. 

The  identification  with  Zer.  rests  on  his  having  credit  for  laying  the 
foundations  of  the  temple  (5'^),  a  task  really  performed  by  Zer.  (Zc. 
4");  on  the  title  "governor"  (s'O,  which  really  belonged  to  Zer.;  and 
on  his  appointment  by  Cy.  Zer.  is  called  "governor  of  Judah"  only 
in  Hg.  I'-  "  2--  ".  Cy.  prob.  appointed  Shes.  as  governor  because  he 
was  already  a  Judean  prince,  and  therefore  his  rule  would  please  the 
Jews. 

With  far  better  reason  Shes.  is  identified  with  Shenazzar  (i  Ch.  3")i 
a  son  of  the  captive  king  Jehoiachin,  and  the  uncle  of  Zer.  (Mey. 
ZAW.  xviii,3«,  Winckler,  KAT.'-  ^ss).  In  that  case  he  must  have  been 
about  sixty  years  of  age  in  539,  and  by  520  would  naturally  have 
given  place  to  his  nephew.  Both  rulers  would  therefore  hold  office  by 
virtue  of  their  royal  descent  (Torrey  rejects  this  identification,  ES."')- 
N'tt*:  is  a  general  term,  one  who  is  exalted,  and  therefore  applicable 
to  any  high  officer.     It  is  used  rarely  before  Ez.    The  term  is  applied 


EZRA    2^-^^  71 

to  Solomon  (i  K.  11").  to  Zedekiah  (Ez.  7"),  to  a  future  Davidic  king 
(tb.  34"  et  pass.),  and  to  foreign  princes  (ib.  26^^;  Smith,  Jer.  i,'", 
BDB.).  The  Chr.  applies  the  term  to  tribal  chiefs.  The  most  that 
we  can  infer  from  its  use  is  that  Shes.  was  the  natural  chief  of  Judah. 
It  is  difl&cult  to  think  of  any  one  holding  such  a  place  who  was  not  of 
the  house  of  David.  The  statement  of  the  release  of  Jehoiachin  in 
561  by  Evil-Merodach  and  his  restoration  to  the  royal  state  becomes 
significant  in  this  connection  (f/.  Mey.  Ent.''^^). 

Winckler  maintains  that  Shes.  continued  his  rule  through  the  reign 
of  Cambyses  (529-522),  and  that  the  opposition  of  the  foreigners  in 
Ezr.  4*-8  was  directed  against  him.  as  he  regards  Cambyses,  not  Xerxes, 
as  the  right  name  of  the  king  (isT^r.'- ^sss.).  Kue.  holds  that  he  is 
the  Tirshatha  of  Ezr.  2",  and  that  he  was  superior  in  authority  to 
Zer,  and  Jes.  (^&A."°).  The  fact  is  that  Shes.  appears  without  intr. 
and  disappears  without  notice.  Our  sources  contain  no  account  of 
his  work  other  than  the  bare  mention  here,  for  Ezr.  s'*  is  certainly 
unhistorical. 


EZR.   2^-*^  =  NE.   7«-".      THE    CENSUS    OF    RETURNED    EXILES. 

The  passage  falls  into  the  following  divisions:  (i)  A  census 
of  the  people  of  Israel,  w.  ^-^  =  Ne.'-^  =  Esd.  5^-'*.  (2)  A 
list  of  laity  who  could  not  show  their  stock,  and  of  priests  who 
could  not  prove  their  official  status,  w.  ^'-^^  =  Ne.^^-^^  =  Esd. 
^36-4o_  (2)  The  total  figures  of  the  census  and  the  number  of 
slaves  and  animals,  w.  ^^-^'^  =  Ne.^^-^^  =  Esd.  5*^  f-.  (4)  A  list 
of  contributions,  vv.  ^^  '•  =  Ne.™  ^-  =  Esd.  5«-45. 

There  are  really  but  three  separate  parts  to  the  passage,  for  (i)  and 
(3)  belong  together,  and  the  other  two  sections  are  independent.  The 
figures  in  (3)  seem  to  be  the  totals  of  those  catalogued  in  (i).  In  (2) 
there  is  a  figure  given  for  the  laity,  which  is  prob.  a  gl.,  as  there  is  no 
figure  for  the  suspended  pr.  (4)  is  the  only  section  which  in  part  is 
duplicated  in  Esd..  for  Esd.  does  not  contain  Ne.  7'-".  It  is  the  part 
which  has  been  most  liberally  edited  to  make  it  a  suitable  preface  in 
the  one  place  to  the  temple-building,  in  the  other  to  the  assembly  for 
reading  the  law.  The  passage  seems  to  be  more  original  in  Ne.,  though 
Ezr.«'  seems  to  be  an  original  part  of  the  temple-building  story,  and 
this  was  probably  amplified  from  Ne. 

Ace.  to  Ne.  7^  this  list  is  a  record  of  "  those  who  came  up  at  the  first," 
and  it  is  assumed  that  this  means  the  company  of  Shes.  But  "at  the 
first "  is  very  vague,  since  Neh.  wrote  a  hundred  years  later  than  Shes. 


72  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Neh.  proposed  to  secure  an  enrolment  with  a  view  to  securing  residents 
for  the  newly  fortified  Jerus.  In  the  note  on  7^  it  is  shown  that  the 
text  is  in  error  here;  so  Sm.  {Listen)  and  many  others.  Manifestly  a 
record  of  a  caravan  a  century  before  his  time  would  have  been  of  no 
use  for  his  purpose.  Therefore  the  passage  cannot  be  original  in  that 
place,  but  Kue.  regards  the  list  as  older  than  Ne.  (Abh.-^^).  Then  the 
narrative  runs  right  on  into  the  time  of  Ezra  (80-  It  is  evident  that 
the  Chr.  uses  the  list  as  a  record  of  those  who  came  with  Zer.  and  Jes.,  a 
disposition  still  clearer  in  the  text  of  Esd.;  indeed,  in  that  version  no 
other  connection  is  possible.  But  such  an  accounting  for  this  list  is 
untenable.  For  (i)  when  we  compare  with  other  companies,  the  num- 
bers are  suspiciously  large.  (2)  The  place-names  suggest  a  time  when 
the  people  were  already  settled  in  Judah  {cf.  Ne.  11"  ^■).  (3)  The 
term  "sons  of  the  province"  in  v.  '  presupposes  a  time  when  Syria  was 
a  regularly  instituted  satrapy  of  the  Pers.  empire.  (4)  The  suspension 
of  pr.  from  the  holy  office  (v.  «=)  could  scarcely  precede  the  building 
of  the  temple.  (5)  It  is  prob.  that  Neh.  or  Ezra  ordered  this  suspen- 
sion (v.  «=).  (6)  The  interpolated  v.  ^s  shows  that  the  original  was 
later  than  the  building  of  the  temple.  (7)  The  term  "all  the  congre- 
gation" (v.  «<),  a  term  inappropriate  to  a  caravan,  suggests  a  census  of 
the  whole  nation,  (v.  further  We.  Isr.  Jiid.  Ges.^^^).  If  we  accept  Tor- 
rey's  view  of  Esd.  4^'-5^  {v.  Intr.  to  c.  3),  it  is  plain  that  further  criti- 
cism is  necessary;  Esd.  5^  begins  "and  these  are  the  names  of  the 
men  who  went  up,"  but  the  only  names  found  are  those  of  Jes.  and 
Zer.;  5'  virtually  repeats  the  statement,  showing  that  while  the  Esd. 
text  originally  had  a  list,  this  is  not  the  original  list,  but  a  substitute 
prob.  from  a  later  Heb.  source.  Moreover,  Ezr.  3"  (or  2«8)  seems  to  me 
to  join  directly  to  Esd.  5^,  though  Torrey  sees  no  difficulty  in  the  pres- 
ent arrangement. 

It  is  easy  to  dismiss  the  matter  as  a  mere  invention  of  the  Chr.,  Tor- 
rey saying  that  it  was  "dehberately  repeated  by  him  (to  add  as  much 
as  possible  to  its  importance) "  (ES.'^^).  Against  this  view,  see  Berth.'. 
The  mere  catalogue  of  names  does,  indeed,  seem  like  the  Chr.;  but 
many  others  cared  for  genealogies  besides  the  oft-abused  Chr.  and  there 
are  integral  parts  of  the  c.  which  are  not  due  to  his  pen.  There  are 
some  positive  results  which  may  be  deemed  reasonable.  Ne.  certainly 
contained  a  list  of  those  who  took  up  residence  in  the  newly  walled 
city,  bare  of  inhabitants  (Ne.  11).  Esd.  shows  clearly  that  it  originally 
had  a  list  of  those  who  came  up  with  Zer.  Lists  are  required,  there- 
fore, in  both  places. 

There  are  many  lists  of  names  in  these  books,  but  the  one  before  us 
is  the  most  comprehensive  of  all.  The  largest  of  all  the  caravans  of 
returning  exiles  may  have  been  that  which  came  with  Zer.  But  on 
the  face  of  it  this  list  is  a  record  of  those  who  came  up  with  a  number  of 
different  leaders  (v.  2).    it  appears  to  be  an  attempt  to  gather  a  com- 


EZRA    2i-«3  73 

prehensive  list  of  all  who  had  come  to  Judah  from  the  time  of  Zer.  to 
the  time  of  Ezra.  Indeed,  what  may  be  the  original  title  of  the  list, 
"the  number  of  the  men  of  the  people  of  Israel"  (v.  ">)  would  suggest 
that  the  list  is  a  census  of  all  the  Israelites  in  Judah,  for  Mey.'s  inter- 
pretation of  the  term  Israel  as  meaning  those  who  came  back  from 
captivity  is  exceedingly  doubtful  (£n/."5.  n.  2)_  fhe  leaders  are  grouped 
together,  and  so  are  the  chief  men  who  composed  the  various  caravans. 
It  was  probably  made  up  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  may  have  stood  as  a 
part  of  the  Ezra  documents.  Certainly  the  unrelated  passage.  No.  2, 
above,  fits  his  age.  The  earliest  notice  of  any  attempt  to  make  a  line 
of  cleavage  between  Israel  and  its  neighbours  was  in  Neh.'s  second 
administration  (Ne.  la^^  f).  There  is  no  indication  of  a  concern  about 
the  purity  of  the  priesthood  before  Ezra's  time.  The  whole  list  may, 
therefore,  stand  in  its  true  place  in  connection  with  Ne.  8,  in  spite  of 
the  evidence  of  Esd.  to  the  contrary. 

Now  it  was  the  theory  of  the  Chr.  that  postex.  Israel  was  made  up 
exclusively  of  those  who  had  returned  from  captivity.  He  therefore 
must  have  a  large  number  of  returning  exiles  at  the  beginning,  cer- 
tainly before  the  building  of  the  temple,  at  which  task  none  but  pure 
Israelites  must  have  a  hand  (Ezr.  4'"')-  Therefore  he  takes  the  largest 
list  found  in  any  of  his  documents  and  substitutes  it  for  the  brief  list 
of  those  who  had  come  up  with  Zer.  When  he  interjected  the  reading 
of  the  law  into  the  history  of  Neh.,  he  took  the  whole  document  Ne. 
7'-8'2.  By  changing  the  purpose  of  Neh.'s  assembly  7'*,  and  adding 
7"',  he  secured  a  suitable  connection. 

What  value  the  list  may  have  is  hard  to  say.  There  was  an  interest 
in  such  records  in  the  postex.  period,  prob.  growing  out  of  the  effort 
to  separate  Israel  from  "the  peoples  of  the  lands."  From  that  point 
of  view  the  section  vv. »'-«'  may  be  quite  appropriate  in  its  place. 
Allowing  for  corruption  this  may  be  an  authentic  census  of  Israel  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  Pers.  period. 

The  numbers  in  the  lists. — The  numbers  vary  greatly  in  the  two  Vrss. 
In  the  list  of  laity  Ezr.  and  Ne.  differ  in  half  the  cases,  and  there  is 
not  a  single  figure  in  which  all  the  texts  agree.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  but  little  variation  in  the  lists  of  temple  officers,  pr.  Lev.  etc., 
suggesting  a  later  text  for  that  part.  There  is  virtual  agreement  in 
the  grand  total,  42,360,  but  we  could  scarcely  hold  with  Seis.  that  the 
agreement  proves  the  figure  to  be  correct.  That  total  is  far  in  excess 
of  the  sum  of  the  various  figures  scattered  through  the  lists  and  from 
which  it  presumably  is  derived.  This  has  been  explained  by  Guthe  as 
due  to  the  loss  of  a  number  of  individual  data;  but  it  is  easier  to  sup- 
pose errors  in  the  numbers  than  loss  from  the  lists  of  such  large  numbers 
as  would  be  necessary  to  make  the  totals  agree.  Mey.  supposes  that 
the  numbers  were  not  originally  written  in  alphabetic  characters,  but-' 
in  cipher  like  the  Phoenician  (£«/."»).    The  variation  is  a  good  ilius- 


74  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

tration  of  the  extent  of  textual  corruption  in  the  OT.,  though  it  is 
likely  that  numbers  have  suffered  more  than  words.  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  if  we  take  the  maximum  number  in  each  case,  and  add  the 
3,005  in  Esd.  51^  (^),  we  get  a  total  of  43,761,  not  far  from  the  correct 
figure.  But  no  conclusion  can  safely  be  drawn  from  this  fact,  as  there 
may  have  been  an  attempt  to  make  the  text  consistent. 

The  variations  in  the  names  is  explained  by  Seis.  as  due  to  three 
reasons:  (i)  Jews  who  had  enrolled  to  return  with  Zer.  changed  their 
minds  and  remained  behind,  while  others  may  have  joined  the  cara- 
van on  the  way;  (2)  many  may  have  died  on  account  of  hardships  of 
the  journey;  (3)  and  minors  may  have  been  enrolled  in  one  list  and  not 
in  another  (Esd.-Ne.-E.  in  loc).  These  reasons  presuppose  a  fidelity 
in  the  records  which  is  scarcely  borne  out  by  the  evidence.  The 
variations  are  not  greater  than  in  other  cases  of  deuterographs,  and 
are  to  be  explained  as  txt.  err.,  sometimes  made  intentionally,  more 
often  accidentally.  The  real  interest  is  in  the  numbers,  not  in  the 
names,  for  names  of  living  individuals  are  few.  The  people  are  grouped 
by  clans,  towns,  ofiices,  and  the  importance  lies  in  the  number  of 
each  group.  Sm.  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  this  list  the  laity 
stand  first,  while  in  other  lists  the  temple  officers  take  precedence 
{Listen,-'").  He  is  in  error  to  a  degree,  for  in  the  strikingly  similar 
list  in  Ne.  11  =  i  Ch.  9,  the  laity  are  named  first.  Sm.  explains  the 
precedence  of  the  laity  as  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  first  century  after 
the  return  the  laity  had  the  upper  hand.  He  notes  the  invariable 
naming  of  Zer.  before  Jer.,  and  the  absence  of  the  high  pr.  in  N.  and  E. 

1-2"  =  Ne.  T^-'"  Esd.  5^^-.    The  introduction  to  the  list. 

— 1.  And  these  are  the  sons  of  the  province  who  came  up  from  the 
captivity  of  the  golah]  shows  a  double  limitation,  the  census 
covering  residents  of  the  Persian  province  of  Judah,  but  who 
had  been  in  Babylon.  Sons  of  the  province  points  to  a  period 
when  the  country  was  well  settled.  The  terms  suggest  an 
effort  to  procure  a  Hst  of  Judeans  who  had  come  from  the  exile, 
in  distinction  from  those  who  had  always  lived  in  Judah.  There 
is  no  indication  of  a  list  of  a  caravan. — Each  to  his  city]  shows 
that  the  pilgrims  were  already  scattered  over  the  country. — 
2.  Who  came  with].'  There  follow  eleven  names,  twelve  in  Ne., 
usually  regarded  as  a  body  of  elders  having  suprenie  authority 
at  the  time  (Sta.  Gesch.  n,^°^;  Kue.  Abh.^^°;  Sm.  Listen,'').  It 
is  claimed  that  hints  of  such  an  official  body  are  found  in  5^ 
6'-  ".     It  is  more  likely  that  these  men  were  the  leaders  of  the 


EZRA    2^-^^  75 

various  caravans  of  returning  exiles  which  kept  coming  to 
Judah  throughout  the  Persian  period  (v.  crit.  n.  on  2^).  Nehe- 
miah  would  then  be  the  well-known  wall-builder. 

1.  nnnn  ^jd]  cf.  Ps.  149=,  "sons  of  Zion,"  Ez.  23'\  "sons  of  Bab- 
ylon," though  text  is  dub.  njnn  is  applied  in  Est.  38  t.  to  the  Pers. 
province,  and  it  might  here  mean  the  district  in  Bab.  whence  the 
exiles  had  come.  But  in  Ne.  i^  it  certainly  means  Judah,  and  it  has 
the  same  mng.  here. — nSun  >2-i']  is  redundant  and  is  found  only  in 
parall.,  Ne.  7«;  elsw.  otr  alone  is  used  in  the  same  sense.  In  the 
earher  books  uc  means  "prisoners,"  but  in  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.  it  has  the  ab- 
stract sense.  In  8''^  we  have  "the  captivity  the  sons  of  the  exile"; 
nSun  ^j2  may  be  a  gl.,  or  ^J3  may  have  dropped  out  of  our  text. — S32S] 
lacking  in  Ne.  but  found  in  all  texts  of  Esd.  The  omission  in  Ne. 
was  prob.  accidental  on  account  of  the  preceding  S33.  The  error  is 
early,  as  the  Vrss.  testify.  The  word  means  Babylonia,  the  country, 
not  Babylon,  the  city. — mini'^i]  as  Ne.«  is  the  more  correct  form. — 2. 
1N3  t.:'n].  Ne.'  qin^h  a  difference  shown  also  in  (&.  Esd.,  however, 
has  ot  iXOovTs?,  supporting  Ne.  ^  lacks  the  expression  in  Ne.  Ezr. 
has  II  names,  Ne.  12,  Esd.^  13,  Matqjap  being  added;  (S^  in  Ne.  has  14, 
adding  "Eapa  and  Macr^ap.  Ezra's  name  properly  belongs  in  the  list; 
the  latter  may  be  a  repetition  of  "iDOr. — jna"]  is  regarded  as  a  late  form 
of  yiB'in"',  ini  becoming  v  and  v  becoming  ~\{v.  Gray,''^).  In  the  con- 
temporary Hg.  and  Zc.  this  name  appears  as  ys'ini,  from  which  it 
would  appear  that  the  shortened  name  was  later  than  this  period  and 
may  be  due  to  the  influence  of  (S,  which  usually  renders:  'iT^aoQi;  = 
j,'Vi'\ — nn-^]  Ne.'  nnr>'.  Esd.  5^  Zapato?''  Slapatoq^-.  Since  'Apocto<;^ 
is  an  evident  error  for  Sapottas'^^,  the  Vrss.  offer  no  real  help.  Both 
are  common  names.  Seraiah  was  the  name  of  Ezra's  father.  He  might 
be  the  one  intended  here.  In  that  case  we  should  infer  that  Ezra 
came  up  with  his  father. — ni':'y-i]  Ne.  n>Dj?n.  'Pse^tJ^a'^  (in  Ne.)  gives 
slight  support  to  Ezr.  Neither  name  occurs  elsw.  After  this  Ne.  has 
a  name  ''jnnj  which  E.  lacks.  The  name  is  supported  by  Esd.  'Ev^qvco^; 
and  even  in  Ezr.  Nsfiavc^.  This  person  is  not  mentioned  elsw. — ^aTic. 
This  can  scarcely  refer  to  Est.'s  kinsman,  and  the  name  does  not  occur 
otherwise. — "12D?:]  Ne.  niDDC.  The  Vrss.  support  their  texts  exc.  that 
Esd.  ('Aacpapaaos)  suggests  the  latter  form,  and  this  is  accepted  by 
Guthe.  Marquart  suggests  Aspadat,  a  Pers.  name  {SBOT.^^).  Nei- 
ther name  occurs  elsw. — Mja]  Oe»  Bayoua,  Bayouiai'^,  Bayouott'-,  Baxouat, 
Baroet^.  The  name  may  have  been  ^',"9,  but  that  form  does  not 
help  in  its  explanation.  Halevy  reads:  ''U-'3N,  rejected  by  Gray  (Pr. 
N.-'),  and  really  without  any  support. — amn]  Ne.  oinj  Esd."*  Poet[jt.o<;, 
Naou[i.L.  The  former  is  a  well-known  name  in  the  postex.  period,  the 
latter  does  not  occur  elsw. 


76  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

2''-35  =  Ne.  7'"-^^   Esd.  5^'\    The  list  of  the  laity.— 

These  are  enumerated  under  two  classes:  (i)  under  the  head 
of  the  clan,  the  people  being  designated  as  sons  of  Parosh,  etc. ; 
(2)  under  the  name  of  the  town  in  which  they  lived,  these 
being  designated  as  men  of  Bethlehem,  etc.  Wherever  these 
designations  are  confused  a  textual  error  may  be  regarded  as 
responsible.    There  is  less  of  such  confusion  in  Ne.  than  in  Ezr. 

We  note  that  we  have :  (i)  a  long  list  of  personal  names,  '-^o  or  =-i' 
if  the  Gibeon  of  Ne.  is  the  correct  reading;  (2)  a  considerable  list  of 
place-names,  ^o  (ori9)-29j  (^)  a  short  list  of  personal  names,  2°-";  (4) 
place-names,  ^^f-;  (5)  and  a  single  personal  name,  ".  There  are  two 
cases  where  the  order  in  Ne.  differs  from  that  in  Ezr.,  w.  "■  i'.  It 
is  very  prob.  that  in  its  original  form  all  the  personal  names  stood  first, 
with  the  place-names  following,  and  Guthe  has  so  arranged  them  in 
his  text.  Otherwise  we  should  have  to  explain  the  list  as  a  growth, 
names  being  added  at  the  end  and  so  causing  the  disarrangement  in 
the  order. 

Esd.  here  shows  wide  divergence  from  MT.  Esd.^  agrees  through- 
out with  MT.  so  far  as  the  names  are  concerned,  but  ^^  lacks  Hashum, 
v.",  Gibbar,  v.  2»,  Ai,  v.  ^^  Nebo,  v.",  the  other  Elam,  v.  ^i,  and 
Harim,  v.  =-.  On  the  other  hand,  ^^  contain  the  following  names 
not  found  in  MT.  v. "  KecXav  x,al  'Al^TQxa?  (npiy^  nSiyp)  'Al^ipou  (ijy 
Ne.  iQis)  V. 'S  'Avvet?  ('Avvt'ot?^),  (n;::n  Ne.  lo^^),  'ApoyL  (onn  v.  ==); 
V.  1',  BatTiQpoOq;  v.  ■",  oc  yjxZia^JOLi  %(x\  'A[jL[xtStot.  It  will  appear,  there- 
fore, that  Esd.  follows  Heb.  in  vv.  '-i^-  21-233. 33-35^  but  in  the  rest  leaves 
out  some  names  and  introduces  others,  and  curiously  the  number  lack- 
ing and  the  number  added,  counting  combined  names,  is  the  same  (six). 
Four  of  the  six  added  names  stand  between  Ater  of  Hezekiah  and  Besai 
(after  v.  ") ,  while  four  of  the  lacking  Heb.  names  are  virtually  continu- 
ous. This  is  the  place  where  Ezr.  and  Ne.  have  a  different  order.  Fol- 
lowing Guthe's  identifications  we  get  easily  a  new  and  prob.  place-name, 
the  men  of  Keilah  and  Azekak  sixty-seven,  and  two  new  clan-names, 
Azziir  and  Hmianiah.  BatTr)pou<;  is  certainly  a  place-name;  Guthe 
reads  in''?  and  substitutes  this  for  Gibbar,  v.  -";  but  Esd.  has  the  in- 
credible number,  3,005,  while  Gibbar  has  but  95.  A  more  prob.  expla- 
nation is  found  in  i  Ch.  2"  -nj-n''a  lox  f|-in.  The  first  word  is  a  name 
in  Ne.  (=  Jorah  v.  i').  The  meaningless  Gibbar  may  be  a  corrup- 
tion of  Beth-Giddar,  which  in  Ne.  becomes  the  well-known  but 
unsuitable  Gibeon.  Beth-Giddar  is  in  Judah  and  would  be  a  proper 
locality  to  connect  with  Bethlehem;  in  fact,  these  two  places  are 
connected  in  i.  Ch.  2".  Each  name  is  preceded  by  'ja  or  'B'JN.  Here 
again  there  is  considerable  diversity  in  use.    In  Ezr.  we  find  sons  exc. 


EZRA    2^-^^  77 

before  Netophah,  Anathoth,  Michmas,  Bethel,  and  Ai;  but  in  (^  before 
the  last  three  onl}-.  In  Ne.  we  find  mai  before  the  names  Bethlehem 
to  Nebo,  with  which  05  agrees  exc.  in  having  "men"  before  Ihe  other 
Elam,  and  ^^  having  "sons"  before  Bethlehem,  Netophah,  Anathoth, 
and  Azmaweth,  these  places  not  occurring  in  ^.  Esd.^'^  agree  with 
Ne.,  since  o"  Ix  =  ib'JN,  but  ^  has  "sons"  exc.  in  two  places,  with 
Michmash  and  with  Bethel  and  Ai,  and  here  we  find  avSpsq,  a  word 
not  occurring  in  ^^.  It  is  safe  to  conclude  that  it  was  intended  to  use 
"sons"  before  personal  names,  and  "men"  before  place-names,  but 
that  there  was  doubt  about  some  of  the  names.  The  system  in  Ne. 
is  nearly  correct,  "sons"  being  used  for  "men"  before  some  place- 
names  at  the  end  on  account  of  the  disarrangement  of  the  list.  It 
will  appear  below  (on  the  place-names)  that  there  are  some  doubtful 
cases. 

The  personal  names. — There  are  24  such  names,  though  Jes.  and  Joab 
are  not  given  as  heads  of  clans,  and  Senaah  is  very  uncertain.  There 
are  other  groups  of  personal  names  in  our  books:  (i)  Ezra's  company 
of  returning  exiles  (Ezr.  8);  (2)  the  list  of  those  who  divorced  their 
foreign  wives  (Ezr.  10);  (3)  the  builders  of  the  wall  (Ne.  3);  and  (4) 
those  who  subscribed  to  the  covenant  (Ne.  10).  List  (i)  contains  the 
clan-names,  and  then  the  individuals  belonging  to  the  clan.  Of  the 
12  clans  there  are  but  2,  Shekaniah^  and  Shelomith'",  which  are  not 
found  in  our  list.  But  in  list  (4),  a  record  of  clan-names  only,  less  than 
half  are  found  in  our  list.  There  are  but  2  clans  found  in  all  the 
lists,  Parosh  and  Pahath-Moab,  and  these  have  the  largest  numbers 
attached;  4  are  found  in  three  lists,  while  but  i,  Arah,  occurs  only  in 
one  list.  Reference  should  here  be  made  to  the  valuable  tables  in 
Sm.'s  Die  Listen,  and  to  the  glossary  at  the  end  of  Berth. 's  comm. 

The  place-names. — Of  the  20  place-names  in  MT.,  14  are  well  known, 
being  found  in  pre-ex.  records  (or  15  if  we  include  Gibeon  as  in  Ne.). 
Of  the  others,  Aztnaiveth  is  dub.,  for  it  may  be  a  personal  name.  Lod, 
Hadid,  and  Ono  are  place-names  in  Ne.  ii^'if-  and  located  in  Benj. 
Hadid  does  not  occur  elsw.  Ono  and  Lod  are  named  as  Benj.  towns 
in  I  Ch.  8^-,  and  the  same  Ono  may  be  intended  in  Ne.  6=.  In  regard 
to  Nebo  there  is  much  doubt.  We  know  a  mountain  and  city  of  that 
name  in  Moab,  but  that  situation  is  unsuitable.  We  find  the  "sons 
of  Nebo"  in  Ezr.  10"  among  those  divorced,  but,  contrary  to  BDB., 
it  is  a  personal  name.  We  note  further  that  in  Ezr.  "men  of"  (v.  =*) 
changes  to  "sons"  at  this  point,  after  which  we  have  personal  names. 
Therefore  Nebo  may  be  a  personal  name  here.  Otherwise  we  may 
regard  the  text  as  slightly  in  error  and  identify  with  Nob,  a  Benj.  city 
(Is.  io32  Ne.  II'').  There  are  thus  several  names  concerning  which 
we  cannot  positively  determine  whether  they  are  personal  or  geograph- 
ical.    These  are  Magbish,  Harim,  Senaah,  Azmaweth,  and  Nebo. 

In  Ne.  1 1 26-36  there  is  an  important  geographical  list  of  the  places  in 


78  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Judah  and  Benj.  inhabited  at  the  time  that  record  was  made.  We  find 
there  1 7  Judean  towns,  not  one  of  which  is  found  in  our  lists.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  15  Benj.  places,  and  of  these  10  are  in  this  list, 
and  of  these  9  are  continuous.  As  our  list  is  later  than  that  in  Ne., 
it  would  appear  that  the  localities  on  the  north  of  Jerus.  remained 
stationary,  while  those  on  the  south  changed  almost  completely  with 
the  course  of  time.  The  Judean  towns  of  our  list  are  all  near  Jerus.; 
some  of  them  in  Ne.  11  are  more  remote;  it  would  appear,  therefore, 
that  the  pilgrims  for  the  most  part  settled  near  Jerus.,  or  else  that  the 
census  taken  did  not  cover  much  ground.  There  are  several  place-names 
in  the  list  of  temple-builders  (Ne.  3),  and,  strange  to  say,  Jericho  is  the 
only  name  that  is  common,  though  Keilah  is  found  in  Ne.  3  in  agree- 
ment with  Esd. 

Mey.  explains  the  separation  of  these  people  designated  by  towns 
from  those  indicated  by  clans  on  the  theory  that  these  are  the  poor 
people  (£«/.'"),  who  were  not  reckoned  by  families.  The  conclusion 
seems  to  me  fanciful.  In  other  lists  the  people  are  grouped  by  towns 
to  distinguish  them  from  the  Jerusalemites  {v.  esp.  Ne.  11);  the  same 
course  is  followed  here. 

2**.  The  number  of  the  men  of  the  people  of  Israel]  is  a  heading 
for  the  lists  which  follow.  The  word  number  expresses  the  idea 
shown  in  most  of  the  table  that  the  interest  is  not  in  the  names, 
but  in  the  figures.  Except  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  temple 
officers,  the  names  of  living  individuals  are  not  given. — 3.  The 
sons  of  Parosh]  meaning  the  members  of  the  clan  of  which  Parosh 
was  the  head.  It  was  a  large  body,  having  2,172  individuals. 
The  clan  appears  often  in  Ezr.-Ne.  8^  10"  Ne.  3^^  lo^^ — 5. 
The  sons  of  Arah,  775],  Ne.  652. — 6.  The  scheme  of  the  list 
fails  here,  MT.  reading,  the  sons  of  Pahath-Moab:  of  the  sons  of 
Jeshua,  Joab,  2,812].  Ne."  reads  Jeshua  and  Joab.  The  text 
is  corrupt,  as  the  departure  from  the  mechanical  system  of  the 
list  shows  {v.  i.). — 7.  Elam  is  well  known  as  the  country  over 
which  Cyrus  ruled.  The  name  recurs  in  v.  ^i  with  the  distin- 
guishing adjective  other;  otherwise  the  verses  are  the  same. 
This  is  a  case  of  accidental  repetition,  and  "other"  was  added 
to  cover  up  the  error. — Zattu]  10-^  Ne.  lo^^;  945  Ne.  845. — 9. 
Zakkai]  only  here,  but  he  may  be  the  same  as  Zabbai  Ne.  3-" 
(so  Qr.). — 10.  Bani\  Ne.i=  Binnui.  Both  forms  recur;  indeed, 
there  are  numerous  forms  from  the  root  T\^2.  642  Ne.  648. — 
12.  Asgad]  8^2  Ne.  io^«  explained  by  Gray  as  containing  the 


EZRA    2^-^^  79 

name  of  the  deity  Gad — Gad  is  mighty.  He  regards  the 
name  as  proof  of  the  worship  of  this  deity  during  the  exile 
{Pr.  iV."^).  But  these  chiefs  may  have  lived  long  before  the 
exile,  as  the  list  deals  with  their  posterity.  Gad  may,  therefore, 
be  David's  prophet  (i  S.  22^),  or  the  tribe  across  the  Jordan, 
representatives  of  which  may  have  been  in  the  postexilic  com- 
munity.— 14.  Bigvai]  is  also  the  name  of  one  of  the  leaders, 
v.  2;  also  8^  Ne.  10". — 16.  The  sons  of  Ater  of  Hezekiah]  cf.  Ne. 
10^*,  where  Hezekiah  follows  Ater  as  a  separate  name.  It  is 
possible  that  Ater  was  a  descendant  of  King  Hezekiah. — 18. 
Jorah]  Ne.2^  Hariph. — 20.  Gibbar]  Ne.^^  Gibeon,  a  place-name. 
Probably  the  correct  form  is  Beth-Giddar  {v.  s.). — 22.  Neto- 
phah]  the  home  of  two  of  David's  heroes  (2  S.  232*).  Identified 
with  Beit  Nettif  at  the  entrance  to  the  vale  of  Elah  (Z)5.).  Ne. 
groups  the  Bethlehemites  and  Netophites  together  with  188 
for  the  two;  the  figures  in  Ezr.  are  123  and  56,  179  in  all. — 
23.  Anathoth]  was  but  three  miles  from  Jerusalem,  and  was 
Jeremiah's  home. — 24.  Azmaweth]  Ne.^^  Beth-Azmaweth,  a  form 
found  nowhere  else.  Azmaweth  is  a  personal  name  (2  S.  12^^ 
I  Ch.  1 1 3^  12^),  and  a  place-name  in  Ne.  12^^,  the  home  of  the 
singers  near  Jerusalem.  As  it  is  among  the  place-names,  this 
town  may  be  meant. — 29.  The  sons  of  Nebo]  Ne.^'  the  men  of 
the  other  Nebo.  The  only  known  Nebo  is  the  Reubenite  town 
in  Moab  (Nu.  32^-  ^^).  From  Ne.  we  infer  that  there  was  an- 
other place  of  this  name. — 30.  Magbish]  lacking  in  Ne.,  and 
not  mentioned  elsewhere. — 32.  Harim]  means  consecrated  and 
is  a  good  priestly  name. — 35.  Senaah]  is  the  name  of  a  wall- 
builder  (Ne.  3^)  and  is  probably  personal  {v.  i.). 

2^.  Sn-hb'"'  Dy  •'Z'in  iddd]  (5^  (jvSpwv  apiOixbq  [  -|-  XctoG^]  'laptJc^X,  an 
evident  transposition,  as  ^  has  dtpi6[j.b<;  av.  In  Ne.  05  has  Maaydp 
avSps?  u'toG  'lCTpaY)X,  Matiyip  avSpe?  XoeoO  'lapaiQX'-.  Esd.  588  has  a 
different  text  twv  tcpotjyouij.svojv  auxuv,  iptO^jib?  tuv  dicb  toO  SOvou? 
xocl  ol  xpo75Yo6txevot  aixwv.  Here  we  have  an  equiv.  of  on>B>N"i  accepted 
by  Guthe  as  a  suitable  ending  of  the  list  of  the  leaders  of  returning 
caravans,  and  a  sHghtly  different  heading  for  the  following  census. 
It  would  be  in  Heb.  anirxni  [or  luc]  aya  lijDD  and  is  less  awkward 
than  MT.  3  Esd.  has  a  still  different  text,  Emonia  units  de  principi- 
bus  eorum.    Et  numerus  a  genlilibus  eorum  ex  prapositis  eorum.    Seis. 


8o  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

holds  that  Israel  is  used  advisedly  rather  than  Judah,  for  the  twelve 
leaders  indicate  representatives  of  all  the  tribes.  There  may  have  been 
men  from  the  ten  tribes  in  the  later  Judean  province,  but  certainly  the 
use  of  the  name  Israel  does  not  even  suggest  such  a  conclusion.  The 
Heb.  phrase  would  make  a  good  title  for  the  list  which  follows,  indicat- 
ing a  census  of  the  whole  nation,  such  as  was  taken  in  David's  time 
(2  S.  24).  It  is  the  Chr.'s  theory  that  these  all  returned  from  cap- 
tivity.— 5.  D^'j.'aa'i  ntrnn]  units  preceding  tens  shows  txt.  err.  Rd.  as 
Ne."  DijUM  O'ccn. — 6.  axin  nns]  8*  10=°  Ne.  3"  lo'^  <6^  has  <J>aXa^- 
yiwii^,  Esd.^  ^OaXstpiwa^,  but  otherwise  ^ocxQ[j.m&^  as  ^.  The  lexicons 
derive  from  nns,  a  pit  =  pit  of  Moab;  but  governor  of  Moab  is  prefer- 
able (B.-Rys.  Ryle),  an  interpretation  supported  by  a  dup.  in  ^:  4>aa9 
■^YOuiA^vou  Mwa^.  The  name  is  strange  for  a  Heb.  family.  Seis,  sup- 
poses it  was  borne  by  a  Moabite  family  which  had  wandered  into 
Judah  as  Ruth  did.  Ryle  supposes  the  family  to  have  been  rulers  of 
part  of  Moab,  and  the  official  has  displaced  the  family  name.  B.-Rys. 
explained  as  a  Judean  ruler  in  Moab  and  held  that  nno  was  a  late  sub- 
stitution for  an  older  word  of  the  same  meaning.  He  cites  i  Ch.  4", 
where  we  find  2xidS  iS^'a.  The  name  might  have  been  3ni3-S>'3,  and 
the  change  made  to  get  rid  of  the  offensive  Baal,  as  Ish-baal  was  changed 
to  Ish-bosheth.  Ew.  held  that  the  name  belonged  to  a  governor  of 
Moab  appointed  by  the  Chaldeans,  and  who  had  later  returned  to 
Jerus.  {Hist.  v,86),  a  view  from  which  Sm.  dissents.  All  that  we  can 
say  surely  is  that  an  official  title  has  become  a  common  clan-name. 

aNv  yvi'>]  It  is  held  that  Jes.  was  the  head  of  one  branch  of  his 
family  and  Joab  the  head  of  a  smaller  branch.  In  that  case  we  should 
have  the  genealogy  of  Joab  traced  back  through  Jes.  to  an  earlier 
Pahath-Moab.  But  Ne.  reads  Jes.  and  Joab;  so  C6^  and  Esd.,  a  ren- 
dering adopted  by  Guthe.  There  is  no  other  case  in  the  personal  names 
where  clans  are  grouped  together  or  where  genealogical  information 
is  added.  The  most  prob.  explanation  is  that  a  number  has  dropped 
out  after  Pahath-Moab,  that  Jes.  has  crept  in  by  accident,  and  "  the 
sons  of  Joab"  is  an  independent  clan.  Otherwise  we  must  regard  of 
the  sons  of  Jes. :  Joab  as  a  gl. — 10.  ''12]  05,  Bavou,  Bavouc,  Bavet,  Bavata, 
Bavatou.  Perhaps  both  Ezr.  and  Ne.  (■'ua)  are  corrupt.  We  might 
get  11J2  "  built,"  or  n;:2  "  Yahweh  has  built,"  comparable  to  the  Bab. 
Baniia.  Names  from  this  root  are  very  common  (v.  forms  in  Ne. 
10"  ii'=  I  Ch.  225). — 11.  133]  is  found  in  Bab.  as  Biba. — 16.  There 
is  a  -1-  in  Esd.'^'^  5",  the  sons  of  Azer,  of  Hezekiah,  the  sons  of  Keilan  and 
Azetas,  67;  the  sotis  of  Azaru,  432;  the  sons  of  Anneis,  loi;  the  sons 
of  Arom.  Twice  a  number  is  wanting,  and  once  both  "  sons  of"  and  a 
number  fail. — 18.  niv]  Ne.  inn  (K^  has  IwpTjs  in  Ezr.  and  Ne.,  but 
Esd.'-  reads  Qpat,  Esd.^^  Apaet^oupstO,  showing  both  names  in  a  cor- 
rupt form,  niv  has  rather  the  better  support. — 20.  13 j]  may  be  an 
error  for  JV3J,  as  Ne.     Esd.^  has  Fagauv,  and  Gibbar  is  not  found 


EZRA    2^-6*  8 1 

elsw.  Gibeon  is  north  of  Jerus.  The  list  begins  with  southern  places 
and  later  gives  those  in  the  north;  therefore,  if  Gibeon  is  right  the  v.  is 
misplaced. — 21.  In  Ne.  (&^  lacks  Bethlehem,  Netophah,  and  Anathoth. 
— 24.  mc']:]  is  the  correct  pointing,  as  all  the  varied  forms  of  (S  end 
in  lAwO. — 26.  Esd.  has  +  o\  xotSiaaat  xal  'A[Ati(Stot  (422). — 27.  DD3d] 
so  Ne.,  but  e'03D  is  the  form  in  i  S.  13-  f-  Is.  10=8  Ne.  11". 

29.  i3j]  +  -inN  in  Ne.,  a  form  supported  by  ^  alone,  the  other  Gk. 
texts  following  Ezr.  Guthe  holds  that  the  sons  of  Neho  must  be  a  clan, 
comparing  Ne.  io=°.  The  other  Neho  of  Ne.  means  another  clan  of  the 
same  name.  As  the  number  52  is  the  same  in  both  texts,  Guthe's 
contention  is  dub. — -30-32.  Maghish,  Elam,  and  Harim  are  usually 
treated  as  place-names  (Sieg.  Seis.  B.-Rys.).  The  evidence  points  to 
personal  names.  Maghish,  lacking  in  Ne.,  but  supported  by  (&,  does 
not  occur  elsw.,  but  as  all  the  other  places  are  well  known,  an  unheard- 
of  place  would  hardly  be  named  here.  There  is  a  personal  name  B'JJ^sjjd 
in  Ne.  10='  which  might  be  the  same.  We  know  of  no  Judean  town 
named  Elam,  still  less  can  we  find  two  of  that  name.  Harim  recurs 
pass.  v.  =8  lo^'- 31  Ne.  3"  735.42  iqs- 28  121^,  and  always  is  a  person. 
^a-ri-im-ma-  is  a  personal  name  on  the  contract  tablets  (Clay,  Mn- 
rashu  Sotis,  x,^"}. — 35.  hnjd]  Ne.  3'  is  deemed  a  place-name  by  many. 
The  number  in  this  group  is  3,630,  3,930  in  Ne.,  about  one-twelfth  of 
the  whole.  This  big  number  could  not  belong  to  an  unknown  place, 
nor  to  an  otherwise  unknown  clan.  The  number  may,  of  course,  be 
wrong,  esp.  as  (S^  in  Ne.  has  930.  In  i  Ch.  9'  there  is  rivSjDn-p  a 
Benj.,  the  same  person  as  nijon-p  in  Ne.  11'  (v.  Benz.  and  Curt,  on 
I  Ch.  9').  The  art.  is  found  in  Ne.  J.  D.  Michaelis  explained  as  "  the 
sons  of  the  unloved  wife"  (nsuc').  Mey.  notes  (Is.  60'^  Jerus.  shall 
be  no  longer  "  abandoned  and  hated,"  but  a  pride  and  joy.  He  holds 
that  "abandoned  and  hated"  covers  these  people,  so  that  the  name 
indicates  neither  a  place  nor  a  person,  but  a  class,  men  without  property, 
servants,  and  the  like.  But  if  Is.  is  cited,  "the  sons  of  the  hated" 
would  be  a  national  name,  covering  all  of  despised  Israel.  In  our  lists 
personal  or  place  names  are  required  throughout.  The  pointing  is 
attested  by  all  Gk.  texts.  A  personal  name  must  be  meant,  and  the 
same  name  is  to  be  assumed  in  i  Ch.  9'  Ne.  11".  Guthe  notes  that  in 
the  Mishna  hnjd  is  a  Benj.  clan. 

36-58.  =  Ne/'^'"  Esd.  5''''^.    The  temple  officers.— These 

are  arranged  in  six  groups:  (i)  Priests.    (2)  Levites.    (3)  Singers. 
(4)  Porters.     (5)  Nethinim,     (6)  Sons  of  Solomon's  servants. 

(i)  The  priests,  vv.  36-39  Ne.3'-«  Esd.^^ '-. — The  number  of  pr.  is  large, 
4,289,  almost  exactly  one-tenth  of  the  whole  list,  but  as  only  four  clans 
are  named,  we  have  an  average  of  over  a  thousand  to  each  clan.  It  is 
very  likely  that  pr.  would  be  interested  above  all  others  in  the  rebuild- 


82  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ing  of  the  temple,  as  that  would  be  a  necessary  step  in  their  restoration 
to  office.  Nevertheless,  it  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  such  a  vast 
number  returning  at  one  time;  and  still  more  difficult  to  comprehend 
the  delay  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  if  more  than  4,000  pr.  were 
on  the  ground  from  the  first. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  list  of  pr.  Ezr.  and  Ne.  agree  in  both 
names  and  numbers,  and  even  d  offers  no  important  variation.  It  is 
natural  to  infer  from  this  harmony  that  the  list  belongs  to  a  late  date, 
a  conclusion  supported  by  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  these  pr. 
in  Jos.  There  are  large  lists  of  pr.'  names  found  in  other  parts  of 
our  books  (Ne.  10'  f-  ii'"  ^-  12'  f).  The  heads  of  the  priestly  houses 
here  are  the  same  as  those  in  the  list  of  divorced  pr.  (Ezr.  lo'^'^), 
exc.  that  here  we  have  "  the  sons  of  Jedaiah  of  the  house  of  Jes."  and 
in  the  other  "  the  sons  of  Jes.  the  son  of  Jozadak";  and  in  the  latter 
list  Harim  precedes  Pashhur.  Among  the  pr.  who  had  taken  foreign 
wives  were  all  the  families  named  in  our  list,  and  no  others.  There 
were  four  other  priestly  clans  which  came  up  with  Ezra  (8^  '■) :  the  sons 
of  Phinehas,  Ithamar,  David,  and  Shecheniah.  These  would  naturally 
not  have  foreign  wives,  being  fresh  arrivals,  while  those  in  our  list  must 
have  been  for  some  time  in  Judah.  In  Ne.  12'  ^-  we  have  the  Chr.'s 
list  of  the  priestly  chiefs  who  came  up  with  Zer.  and  Jes.  and  there  we 
find  22,  not  one  being  identical  with  our  list.  It  is  worthy  of  note 
that  Esd.^  gives  a  total  of  2,588  pr.  as  against  4,289  of  MT.  The  large 
numbers  and  the  few  names  may  be  due  to  the  necessary  grouping  in 
large  divisions,  because  pr.  were,  indeed,  very  plentiful  when  the  list 
was  made.  Yet  the  number  seems  to  be  exaggerated.  Smith  con- 
siders the  1,500  of  the  pseudo-Aristeas  the  maximum  for  any  period 
Qer.  i,5"f). 

We.  notes  that  the  first  priestly  clan  appears  to  be  composed  of  the 
descendants  of  Jes.,  the  contemporary  of  Zer.,  and  that  the  list,  there- 
fore, belongs  to  a  much  later  period  than  that  of  Cy.  or  Dar.  {GGN. 
1895,"');  but  Mey.  questions,  I  think  wrongly,  the  conclusion  and 
the  identification  (Ent.^^^). 

Jedaiah]  recurs  in  the  other  lists  of  priests,  and  also  in  i  Ch. 
9!"  24^;  in  the  last  passage  a  priest  of  the  second  class.  (8 
shows  a  great  variety  of  forms,  but  the  Hebrew  pointing  is  cor- 
rect.— Of  the  house  of  Jeshua]  means  that  the  family  of  Jedaiah 
is  traceable  to  an  earlier  Jeshua. — 37.  Immer]  recurs  in  the  lists 
and  in  i  Ch.  9^^  24''.  There  was  a  priest  of  this  name  in  Jere- 
miah's time  (Je.  20^.  The  name  has  accidentally  dropped 
from  (^^  in  Ne.  7*°. — 38.  Passkur]  is  the  name  of  the  priest  who 
was  the  son  of  Immer  and  who  put  Jeremiah  in  the  stocks  (Je. 


EZRA    2i-«9  83 

20). — 39.  Harim]  was  found  among  the  laity,  v.  ^^;  as  the  name 
means  "consecrated,"  it  is  pecuHarly  appropriate  for  a  priest. 
Mey.  suggests  that  there  might  be  lay  elements  in  a  priestly 
clan  {Ent.^'"'),  but  we  must  not  make  too  much  out  of  a  name. 

36.  Esd.L  begins  "  the  sons  of  pr.,"  but  this  is  an  error.  ^^  contain 
an  additional  name,  and  a  slightly  different  construction ;  the  sons  of 
Jeddon  of  the  son  of  Jesus,  for  the  sons  of  Sanabeis,  872  (A  Anaseib,  by 
metathesis).  This  does  not  afiford  much  help.  It  is  barely  possible  that 
Esd.'s  name  is  Sanb.  and  the  omission  from  the  lists  would  be  due  to 
hatred  of  Neh.'s  bitter  opponent.  (B  suggests  another  name:  'leouSi^, 
'IsSSoua^"-,  i.  e.,  Jaddua  (Ne.  12""),  who  was  high  pr.  in  the  time 
of  Alexander  the  Great  {v.  Mey.'s^).  But  Jaddua  and  Jedaiah  are 
not  necessarily  the  same,  for  (&  makes  sad  havoc  of  Heb.  names.  The 
question  arises  whether  this  Jes.  is  the  high  pr.  and  the  companion  of 
Zer.  If  so,  We.'s  contention  is  correct,  that  we  are  here  far  removed 
from  the  time  in  which  Jes.  lived  (quoted  by  Mey.  op.  cit.).  But  Mey. 
says  that  that  identification  is  by  no  means  certain,  since  there  was 
also  a  Levitical  family  named  Jes.  We.  is  probably  right  though,  for 
there  would  be  no  reason  for  adding  Jes.'s  name  unless  it  were  weU 
known.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  we  should  correct  the  text  here  on  the 
basis  of  Ezr.  lo'^  ^-  Among  those  divorced  were  four  priestly  families, 
the  sons  of  Jes.  of  Immer,  of  Harim,  and  of  Passhur;  the  best  result 
would  be  obtained  by  regarding  rr'^S  n^yii  as  an  explanatory  gl. 

(2)  The  Levites,  v.  ^^  Ne."  Esd.=«. — Two  facts  engage  our  attention 
in  connection  with  this  hst,  the  small  number  of  the  Lev.  and  their 
separation  into  a  distinct  class  from  the  pr.  The  paucity  of  this  class 
in  the  restoration  is  usually  explained  on  the  ground  of  the  unwilling- 
ness of  the  degraded  Lev.  to  accept  the  humbler  duties  to  which  they 
were  consigned  in  the  postex.  period.  But  there  is  not  a  hint  of  this 
feeling  in  our  sources.  When  Ezra's  company  assembled  at  the  river 
Ahava  and  a  muster  was  taken,  it  was  learned  that  there  was  not  a 
Lev.  in  the  whole  assembly.  By  a  diligent  search  through  the  coun- 
try Ezra  secured  38  Lev.  (8"  '•).  It  appears  that  the  trouble  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  in  this  period  there  were  not  many  Lev.  apart  from  the 
priestly  order.  It  seems  clear  that  from  the  small  numbers  and  from 
the  character  of  the  v.,  which  is  very  broken,  that  we  have  here  but  a 
fragment  of  the  original  list  of  Lev. 

This  is  the  first  instance  in  our  books  where  pr.  and  Lev.  are  reck- 
oned as  distinct  classes.  It  is  not  difficult,  however,  with  the  material 
at  hand  to  trace  the  course  of  events  which  led  to  this  distinction.  In 
the  early  days  Lev.  like  pr.  and  prophet  indicated  an  office  rather  than 
a  tribe.    There  were  plenty  of  pr.  who  were  not  Lev.,  but  there  were 


84  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

prob.  no  Lev.  who  were  not  pr.  By  the  seventh  century,  as  the  book 
of  Dt.  shows,  the  non-Levitical  pr.  had  disappeared  or  had  been  re- 
ceived into  the  order,  for  pr.  and  Lev.  are  syn.  When  Josiah  central- 
ised the  cult  at  Jerus.  the  pr.  of  the  local  shrines  either  came  to  Jerus. 
and  acted  in  a  subordinate  capacity  or  were  left  without  occupation 
and  support.  Ez.  knows  the  identification,  but  he  declares  that  only 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  who  are  nevertheless  Lev.,  shall  serve  in  the  priest- 
hood (40<=  44' 0;  £ill  other  Lev.  are  to  do  the  humble  oflQces  at  the 
sanctuary,  tending  the  doors,  butchering  the  sacrifices,  and  doing  such 
other  menial  services  as  are  recjuired.  At  the  end  the  Lev.  are  spoken 
of  as  a  separate  class  (4812  '•). 

It  is  apparent  that  now  the  Lev.  is  no  longer  a  pr.  in  his  own  right. 
The  priesthood  had  once  embraced  many  who  were  not  Lev.,  now  the 
Lev.  embrace  many  who  are  not  pr.  It  would  surely  happen  during 
the  exile  that  these  deposed  Lev.  would  enter  the  secular  life  (c/.  Ne. 
13"),  with  the  result  that  when  the  exile  was  over  but  few  of  this  order 
survived.  In  P  this  distinction  is  treated  as  if  it  had  always  existed, 
it  being  said  that  Moses  gave  the  tribe  of  Levi  unto  Aaron  that  they 
might  minister  to  the  priesthood  (Nu.  3O.  Their  duties  in  the  later 
days  were  manifold  and  various;  they  killed  the  sacrificial  animals; 
they  served  as  doorkeepers  and  singers;  they  did  duty  as  scribes  (2 
Ch.  34")  and  as  teachers  {ib.  35'  Ne.  8'-  ');  they  went  about  begging 
money  for  the  temple  (2  Ch.  24^  ^■). 

40.  MT.  runs:  the  sofis  of  Jes.  and  Kadmiel:  of  the  sons  of  Hodaviah]. 
It  would  appear  from  this  that  there  was  but  one  Levitical  guild,  whose 
two  branches,  Jes.  and  Kadmiel,  are  represented  in  the  return.  But 
in  3'  there  are  apparently  three  independent  guilds,  Jes.  Kadmiel, 
Judah  (=  Hodaviah).  Among  the  Lev.  sealed  we  find  Jes.  Kadmiel, 
and  Hodiah  (Hodaviah);  in  Ne.  gS  another  list  of  eight  Lev.  "who 
went  up  with  Zer.,"  we  find  Jes.  Kadmiel,  and  Judah;  while  in  Ne. 
12"  Jes.  is  given  as  the  son  of  Kadmiel.  (We  have  also  Jes.  the  son  of 
Azaniah,  Ne.  lo').  In  other  lists  we  find  of  these  three  only  Jes.  and 
Kadmiel  (Ne.  g*-  ')  or  Jes.  and  Hodiah  (Ne.  8').  It  is  evident  that 
there  is  much  confusion  in  the  lists  of  Lev.,  but  it  is  prob.  that  our 
text  should  read :  the  sons  of  Jes.  Kadmiel,  Bani,  and  Hodaviah,  so  that 
this  record  names  four  small  Levitical  guilds.  3  Esd.  has  an  extraor- 
dinary text :  LevilcB  filii  Jesu  in  Cadnhel  et  Bands,  et  Serebias  et  Edias 
septuaginta  qnattnor;  omnis  numeriis  a  duodecimo  anno:  triginta  inillia 
qiiadrigenti  sexaginta  duo,  filii  et  filice  et  nxores:  omnis  computatis:  quad- 
raginta  millia  ducenti  quadraginla  duo.  No  lack  of  Lev.  ace.  to  this 
source. 

(3)  The  singers,  v,  *^  Ne.  7^*  Esd.  5". — ^These  are  treated  as 
a  distinct  class  like  the  Levites.    There  may  have  been  such 


EZRA    21-^9  85 

a  body  in  the  pre-exilic  age  {OTJC?^^).  Their  office  would 
naturally  be  that  of  choristers  in  the  temple  service,  and  they 
played  their  own  accompaniment  (i  Ch.  15^®);  they  were  ap- 
pointed by  the  king  for  service  in  the  temple  and  received  reg- 
ular pay  (Ne.  ii^^  '•);  their  dwellings  were  in  the  environs  of 
Jerusalem  {ih.  1229);  Nehemiah  found  them  scattered  in  the 
fields  on  account  of  non-support  {ib.  13^"). — The  sons  of  Asaph] 
the  only  name,  indicating  but  a  single  guild.  To  Asaph  are 
ascribed  a  group  of  Psalms,  50,  73-83,  and  he  may  have  been 
the  head  of  a  choir  in  the  Persian  period  {cf.  Br.Ps>i^'f). 

(4)  The  porters,  v.  ^^  Ne.  7''^  Esd.  5^^ — Sons  of\.  Wanting  in 
Ne.  and  unnecessary.  The  porters  or  doorkeepers  are  usually 
mentioned  with  the  singers,  though  their  functions  were  dif- 
ferent. They  must  have  been  found  wherever  there  was  a 
sanctuary;  Samuel  was  virtually  the  porter  of  the  temple  at 
Shiloh  (i  S.  3^^).  According  to  Ne.  12^5  they  were  the  guardians 
of  the  storehouses  of  the  gates,  but  this  must  have  been  a 
special  function. 

There  are  six  names  as  heads  of  the  guilds  of  porters. — 
Shallum]  is  a  name  given  to  many  Hebrews.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  that  Maaseiah  the  son  of  Shallum  was  a  keeper  of  the 
threshold  in  Jeremiah's  time  (Je.  35*).  There  were  three  such 
officers,  and  all  were  put  to  death  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  {ib. 
52^4  ff). — Ater]  occurs  also  as  the  head  of  a  lay  clan,  v.  ^^.  We 
know  nothing  further  about  him. — Akkub]  is  named  among  the 
Levites  who  interpreted  the  law  (Ne.  8'). — Hatita  and  Shobai] 
are  not  mentioned  elsewhere. — The  whole]  i.  e.,  the  sum  of  all 
the  guilds  of  porters  is  139  (Ne.  138).  From  the  words  in  Ps. 
84",  "I  had  rather  be  a  doorkeeper  in  the  house  of  my  God 
than  to  dwell  in  the  tents  of  wickedness,"  the  office  must  have 
been  rather  a  humble  one.  Br.  gives  quite  a  different  render- 
ing (Ps.  in  loc). 

Singers  and  porters  are  mentioned  many  times  in  Ezr.-Ne.  and  in 
Ch.,  but  rarely  elsw.  (singers  not  at  all,  and  porters  not  in  the  sense  of 
temple  officers).  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that  in  Ezr.-Ne. 
they  are  sharply  differentiated  from  the  Lev.,  while  in  Ch.  they  belong 
to  that  class  {v.  Baudissin,  DB^  i.v ,"'').    Torrey,  on  the  other  hand. 


86  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

holds  that  there  is  no  such  distinction  {Comp.''-  ^  )•  In  most  of  the  cases 
where  they  are  named  in  Ezr.-Ne.  they  are  distinguished  from  the  Lev. 
as  a  class  (Ezr.  2-°  y  Ne.  lo"-  *"  1$%  the  porters  usually  named  first). 
But  in  Ne.  12"  the  Lev.  were  brought  to  Jerus.  to  sing  at  the  dedication 
of  the  wall,  though  it  is  apparently  said  in  i2«  that  the  singers  per- 
formed this  ofEce.  In  13'°  the  singers  and  Lev.  are  classed  together  as 
doing  the  same  work  and  sharing  the  same  hard  fate.  In  i  Ch.  9'' 
certain  singers  are  called  heads  of  Lev.  clans,  and  they  are  called  the 
brethren  of  the  Lev.  ib.  151^  On  the  other  hand,  the  singers  and  porters 
are  distinguished  from  the  Lev.  in  2  Ch.  35'^  as  sharply  as  in  any 
place  in  Ezr.-Ne.  The  mention  of  these  classes  in  our  books  is  due 
chiefly  to  the  Chr.,  and  he  knows  nothing  of  a  development  in  religion. 
In  the  pre-ex.  temple,  little  as  we  know  about  its  rites,  we  may  be 
sure  there  were  porters  and  prob.  singers.  But  guilds  like  these  would 
not  be  preserved  intact  during  the  exile.  The  origin  of  these  classes 
must  date  from  the  second  temple,  and  such  functions  as  they  per- 
formed would  naturally  fall  to  the  Lev.  The  Chr.  knows  certain  famous 
names  belonging  to  these  guilds,  and  he  uses  them  wherever  the  oc- 
casion demands.  In  Ezr.  3"'  Ne.  11=2  the  Lev.  are  identified  with  the 
sons  of  Asaph.  Singing  and  playing  were  certainly  functions  of  the 
Lev.  This  list  does  not  pretend  to  give  the  name  of  a  singer  of  this 
period  nor  do  we  find  such  a  list  in  our  sources.  The  Lev.  are  frequently 
named  also  as  doorkeepers  (Ne.  12=^  13--  i  Ch.  9-^  2  Ch.  8"  23^  34'-  "). 

41.  omrcn]  Esd.^  u'lol  Aaay  ot  <^3o(.  3  "Esd.  Jilil  sacredolum  qui  psal- 
lebant  in  tetnplo,  an  explanatory  gl. — 42.  ''J3]  del.  as  Ne.,  though  (S^  in 
Ne.  supports  text  of  Ezr.  (S^  is  correct  enough,  ulol  twv  xuXwv,  reading 
onj/'cn,  gates,  instead  of  gatekeepers;  this  may  be  the  original  Ezr.  text. 
Esd.^^  reads  differently  from  MT.,  viz.,  the  porters,  400;  thoseof  Ishmael, 
the  sons  of  Lakoiibatos,  1,000;  the  sons  of  Tobeis,  all  139.  The  total  has 
been  made  to  agree  with  Heb.  without  reference  to  the  other  figures. 

In  other  lists  of  porters,  Ne.  11"  has  Akkub  and  Talmon;  Ne.  12'^ 
MeshuUam  (=  Shallum),  Talmon,  and  Akkub;  i  Ch.  91'  Shallum, 
Akkub,  Talmon,  and  Ahiman,  Shallum  being  designated  as  the  chief. 
Ahiman  is  apparently  a  misreading  of  onins,  their  brothers,  so  that  we 
have  but  three  constant  names,  Shallum,  Talmon,  and  Akkub.  There- 
fore Ater,  Hatita,  and  Shobai  are  prob.  later  than  the  Chr. — Sjn]  want- 
ing in  Ne.,  but  supported  by  Gk.  texts  of  Ezr. 

(5)  The  Nethinim,  w.  "3-54  ^g,  ^46-56  ggd.  529-32,— Noteworthy 
is  the  unusually  long  list  of  this  class.  There  are  35  names  in 
Ezr.,  Ne.  having  3  less.  But  Esd.  has  a  longer  list,  38  names 
in  ,  39  in  ;  agrees  with  MT.  On  this  ground  Guthe  adds 
5  names  to  the  list,  making  40  in  all.    They  are  all  given  as 


EZRA    21-69  87 

heads  of  clans,  and  we  should  expect  a  large  number  of  indi- 
viduals. There  were,  however,  but  392  of  the  Nethinim  and 
sons  of  Solomon's  servants  combined,  separate  numbers  not  be- 
ing given.  It  is  evident  that  these  clans  or  guilds  were  very 
small,  averaging  about  nine  persons  each.  The  Nethinim  Were 
subordinate  temple  oflacers,  performing  the  humblest  functions 
at  the  sanctuary. 

The  name  Neth.  occurs  but  once  elsw.  than  Ezr.-Ne.  (1  Ch.  9=), 
but  many  times  in  our  books,  Ezr.  2"-  ^^-  '°  7'-  -<  S^'-  2°  '*"'  Ne.  j's-  3» 
yte.  60.  73  10"  II'-  21  '*").  Torrey  holds  that  all  these  passages  are  from 
the  Chr.  Of  most  of  them  that  statement  is  true;  when  we  find  an  insti- 
tution like  this  traced  back  to  David  (Ezr.  S-"),  it  is  good  evidence  of 
the  hand  of  the  Chr.  But  the  reference  to  the  house  of  the  Neth.  in  Ne. 
3"  is  earlier  than  the  Chr.  and  attests  the  existence  of  this  body  before 
his  time.  This  house  was  prob.  occupied  by  those  who  were  on  duty  at 
the  temple,  the  rest  living  in  Ophel  (Ne.  3^'  ii=')-  The  site  of  the  house 
opposite  the  water  gate  has  been  supposed  to  connect  them  with  the 
drawers  of  water  (Jos.  9^')  (Ryle,  DB.),  but  that  is  fanciful.  Ace.  to 
Ezr.  8-°  they  were  given  for  the  service  of  the  Lev.  They  are  gener- 
ally regarded  as  temple  slaves  (Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  ii,'-  "',  BT.^"). 
They  are  called  lepoSouXot  by  Jos.  (Anliq.  xi,  5,  i  and  Esd.^'^).  Kue. 
holds  that  they  were  mere  foreigners  held  as  slaves  and  finds  a  refer- 
ence to  them  in  Zc.  1421,  "  and  in  that  day  there  shall  no  more  be  a 
Canaanite  in  the  house  of  Yahweh"  {Einl.  ii,^°°).  Mitchell  supposes 
Canaanite  to  mean  "  trader"  (Zc.  ICC,  so  Mar.  Dodekapr.). 

It  is  held  that  they  were  descendants  of  prisoners  of  war,  as  the 
Gibeonites  were  made  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  (Jos.  9")> 
and  support  for  this  contention  is  found  in  the  presence  of  foreign 
names  in  the  list  (Berth.  OTJC.^^^).  This  view  is  scarcely  tenable; 
for  this  term  is  applied  to  the  Lev.  in  Esd.  i',  since  ispoSouXoc  standing 
there  for  the  Lev.  is  given  to  the  Neth.  in  5-^  If  they  were  foreign 
slaves  we  should  scarcely  have  such  a  painstaking  record  of  the  names 
of  their  clans.  They  are  usually  named  in  connection  with  the  other 
classes  of  temple  officers,  pr.  Lev.  singers,  and  porters;  with  pr.  and 
Lev.  alone  in  i  Ch.  g-,  or  with  pr.  Lev.  and  sons  of  Solomon's  servants 
(Ne.  1 1 3).  The  leaders  of  this -body  were  Siha  and  Gishpa  (Ne.  11 =0? 
showing  some  sort  of  organisation.  The  identification  of  the  Neth. 
with  the  Lev.  as  in  Esd.,  along  with  the  constant  connection  above 
mentioned,  makes  it  highly  probable  that  they  were  a  branch  of  the 
Levitical  body,  which  gradually  disappeared  in  the  later  religious  de- 
velopment. This  view  is  supported  by  Nu.  3',  where  it  is  said  that- 
the  Lev,  were  given  to  the  pr.     It  is  prob.  that  Nu.  3'  has  the  name 


88  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

of  the  Neth.  The  text  stands  now  iS  ncn  o'jinj  a>jinj,  rendered  in  RV. 
"  they  are  wholly  given  to  him"  (Aaron),  a  rendering  accepted  by  Gray 
(Nil.).  The  repetition  recurs  in  Nu.  8",  but  written  defectively  (o'lji-ij). 
We  should,  perhaps,  rd.  D'-jipj  otpj  "  as  Neth.  are  they  given  to  him." 
Nu.  i8«  should  then  be  rendered:  "to  you  they  are  a  gift,  Yahweh's 
Neth.,  to  do  the  work  at  the  tent  of  meeting." 

An  extraordinary  thing  about  this  list  is  the  large  number  of  names 
which  are  not  found  elsw.  Of  the  35  there  are  only  9  which  recur.  One 
of  these,  Siha,  may  be  disregarded,  as  its  repetition  is  in  the  same  con- 
nection; two  others  are  names  of  foreign  kings,  Rezin  and  Sisera;  a 
fourth  is  otherwise  found  only  of  one  of  the  sons  of  Solomon,  Giddel; 
a  fifth  is  corrupt,  Meunim.  Virtually  we  have  a  long  list  of  peculiar 
names.  It  is  highly  prob.  that]this  list  was  not  made  up  by  the  Chr.,  for 
he  uses  the  same  names  over  and  over  again.  Another  peculiarity  of 
the  list  is  the  considerable  number  with  the  ending  n  __,  of  which  there 
are  14  (reading  njdn,  v.  ^o,  and  taking  Ne.'s  forms).  This  apparently  is 
due  to  an  Aram,  influence.  Many  of  the  names  are  explicable  as  Heb., 
but  the  hst  seems  to  have  been  written  by  one  whose  tongue  was  Aram. 

Che.  has  a  characteristic  interpretation:  like  Nathan,  Nathanel, 
Nethanim  is  a  disguise  of  Ethani.  Ethan  the  Ezrahite  was  a  Jewish 
Jerachmeelite,  since  bene  Neahol  (i  K.  4^'  5'')  =  bene  Jerachmeel  {AJT. 
1901,^^*).  Similarly  he  holds  that  for  the  sons  of  Solomon's  servants 
(v.  ")  we  should  rd.  nDSb-  3';i]?.''J3]  "  the  people  of  Salmaean  Arabia." 

Still  the  foreign  element  in  the  names  is  a  serious  difficulty.  The  fact 
is  we  have  very  little  information  about  this  class  of  officers.  The 
designation  in  3  Esd.  sacerdotes  servientes  in  templo  would  indicate  that 
the  Neth.  were  considered  a  branch  of  the  pr. 

43.  Siha]  was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Nethinim  (Ne.  ii^i). 
It  is  singular  that  the  name  of  the  other  leader,  Gispah,  is  not 
found  in  this  list. — 46.  Hanan]  occurs  in  i  Ch.  11^'  as  a  warrior 
of  David's  time.  The  sons  of  Hanan  (Bab.  Xanana)  had  a 
chamber  in  the  temple  in  Jeremiah's  day  (Je.  35^),  and  they  may 
have  performed  similar  functions  to  the  later  Nethinim.  The 
name  is  also  Levitical  (Ne.  8'  10"  13^). — 47.  Giddel]  recurs  as 
one  of  the  servants  of  Solomon  (v.  ^). — Reaiah]  also  in  i  Ch. 
4}  (a  Judahite)  5^  (a  Reubenite). — 48.  Rezin]  is  found  else- 
where only  as  the  name  of  the  king  of  Aram,  who  joined  Pekah 
against  Ahaz  (Is.  7^. — 49.  Uzza]  was  the  name  of  the  man  who 
was  slain  in  moving  the  ark  (2  S.  6^). — Pareah]  ("lame")  is 
found  in  i  Ch.  4I-  and  in  Ne.  3®  as  the  father  of  Joiada,  one  of 
the  wall-builders. — 50.  Meunim]  is  a  gentilic  noun  (i  Ch.  4*^ 


EZRA    2i-«»  89 

2  Ch.  20^  26O,  a  people  in  Arabia  (Benz.  C/^r.  KAT.^- 1^"^)  of 
whom  it  is  held  that  these  Nethinim  are  descendants;  from 
this  conclusion  Taylor  argues  that  the  Nethinim  were  foreign 
slaves  (DB.).  But  the  names  in  this  list  are  personal,  and  there 
can  scarcely  be  two  exceptions  in  the  middle  of  the  list.  It  is 
probable  that  a  personal  name  is  disguised  under  this  form,  but 
it  is  not  possible  to  tell  what  it  is.  In  Esd.  we  find  Manei  and 
Maani,  but  little  dependence  can  be  placed  on  its  testimony. 
— Nephisim]  is  interpreted  by  Taylor  {DB.  iii,^*''')  as  "repre- 
sentatives of  the  race  mentioned  in  Gn,  251^";  in  this  passage 
N aphis  (t^"'SJ)  is  given  as  a  descendant  of  Ishmael  (so  i  Ch.  i^i), 
but  apparently  a  different  people  is  meant  in  i  Ch.  51^.  There 
is  no  other  mention  of  this  people,  and  it  is  scarcely  likely  that 
their  descendants  would  turn  up  in  the  postexilic  period  among 
a  Levitical  order.  Moreover,  a  personal  name  is  required  here. 
— 53.  Barkos]  is  unusually  well  attested  by  C5.  There  is  a 
Babylonian  name  which  closely  corresponds,  Bargilsu. — Sisera] 
also  well  attested  by  C5  (though  ^  lacks  it  in  Ezr.  and  ^  in  Ne.), 
was  the  name  of  the  king  whose  defeat  is  celebrated  in  the  song 
of  Deborah,  On  the  name,  see  Moore,  Ju.  4^,  and  PAOS.  xix,""; 
Moore  holds  that  Sisera  was  a  Hittite. 

43,  D'rnjn],  We  find  the  word  without  the  article  (Ezr.  S^o),  and  in 
Nu,  if  my  emendation  is  correct  {v.  s.).  In  one  place  we  find  the  regular 
participial  form  D'-jinj  (Kt.  Ezr.  8'0,  but  the  text  is  corrupt;  d  bears 
abundant  testimony  to  the  Heb.  form,  and  it  is  therefore  to  be  regarded 
as  a  n.  formation  from  the  root  jn:.  The  idea  of  giving  a  person  to 
the  temple  service  is  at  least  as  old  as  Samuel;  in  Hannah's  vow  she 
says:  "I  will  give  him  to  Yahweh  all  the  days  of  his  life,"  Samuel 
may  therefore  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  Neth. — nn^x]  Ne.  am  but  11 21 
as  Ezr,  (5  SouGtaB,  SouaaA,  SouSSaeti-;  Ne,  SrjaBA,  SouXatL;  Esd, 
Haau^A,  SouSaet^.  05  suggests  that  the  first  syl.  should  be  1X;  it  is  hard  to 
tell  about  the  rest,— Nown]  Ne,  Nscn  (S^  jq  Ne.  Aa<pa,  but  a  in  Ne,  and 
Esd,  has  Acjstipa  (NciB-n),  but  Ezr.  is  supported  by  (&  Aaouips. — 44.  Dip] 
Ne,  DT'p  di^  always  Kope<;  =  regular  ptc.  Diip,  ^  has  Kcthric,  (Ezr.)  Kecpa 
(Ne.)  K-qgac,  (Esd.);  ^  has  KiQpaoq  (Ezr.), — ^?^J7^D]  Ne.  nj7^d  (S^  Iwatou, 
Iwota  (Esd.),  "  2toTf)X  (Ezr.),  Aaouta'',  Scata'*-,  laaouia^  (Ne.),  Soua, 
Souoa-*^  (Esd.),  (S  therefore  gives  little  support  to  either  Heb.  form. — 
45.  nj2S]  Ne.  njjS  (&^  Ao^vct.  Other  Gk.  forms  attest  MT.  Prob, 
Ne,  is  right,  with  its  Aramaised  ending. — najn]  Ne,  N3Jn;  latter  prob. 


90   '  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

right. — aipj>]  lacking  in  Ne.,  but  found  in  Gk.  exc.  ^  and  Esd.'^.  The 
name  is  suspicious  in  the  h'st,  because  of  its  recurrence  elsw.  (c/.  v. "). — 
46.  3Jn]  also  lacking  in  Ne.,  though  found  in  (S  (exc.  ^);  it  is  prob.  a 
repetition  of  XJjn  v.  •"•'. — i'^ds']  Ne.  ■'D'?t^'  (&^  (Ezr.)  Satiaov;  otherwise 
(S  supports  Ne.  Berth,  cites  ■'cStf  as  evidence  of  the  foreign  origin 
of  the  Neth.  In  NH  the  name  ■'n'j'-f  occurs  (BDB.),  corresponding  to 
d  SeXotixet.  Esd.  52'  adds  two  names,  Ouxa,  Kij-cap,  so  05-*^^  in  Ne.". 
— 47.  Snj]  Esd.  Koua,  K£9oua^;  otherwise  l|  is  attested,  though  in  Ne. 
the  form  FaSTjX  occurs  in  ^^. — 48.  Niipj]  cf.  Bab.  Niqudu. — 49.  ■^02] 
Baaepi-,  BeaaBp  (Esd.);  otherwise  (g  attests  MT. — 50.  hjdn]  lacking 
in  Ne.  but  supported  by  ^^^^,  Aaevva'-.  Perhaps  we  should  write 
NjDN,  "thorn  bush"  {cf.  BDB.). — oidibj]  Qr.  dididj,  Ne.  a-'DK'i£3j]  Qr. 
D^DC'^'SJ.  The  form  in  Ne.  is  explained  as  a  mixture  of  two  variants;  it 
is  certainly  a  corrupt  form,  but  the  corruption  is  older  than  05,  where 
we  have  Nsywaotaet^'*,  Neqjwaasttx^.  (6^  in  Ezr.  has  Nacpeifftov  (jD''Dj),  or 
perhaps  since  [j.  and  v  final  are  often  confused  (dd^dj),  which  under  the 
influence  of  O'ij^d  has  been  pointed  as  a  pi.;  Esd.  has  Na(pstaec.  It  is 
not  possible  to  tell  what  the  original  name  was. — 52.  mSxa]  Ne."  Kt. 
n^Sxa.  There  is  much  variation  in  (5,  but  most  of  the  forms  show  that 
they  rd.  the  last  syl.  niS. — xcnn]  (5  offers  great  variety:  Ezr.  ApTjaa^^, 
Agaaa^;  Ne.  ASaaa(v)  ("i  being  rd.  as  i);  Esd.  AeSSa^,  MeeSSaA 
BaaaaK — Dipna]  a  south  Ar.  name  (Euting),  cf.  Bab.  Barkusu.  The 
second  element  is  regarded  as  the  Edomite  deity  Kos  {KAT."'^,  Mu- 
rashu  Sons,  ix,",  Gray,  Pr.  iV.«').  Hilprecht  and  Clay  explain  the  first 
syl.  as  the  deity  Bir,  but  Gray  with  greater  probabiUty  suggests  bar, 


(6)  The  sons  of  Solomon's  servants,  vv.  ^^-^^  Ne.  y^^-eo  Egfj  ^33-35_ 
— This  body  is  named  elsewhere  only  in  the  corresponding 
passage  in  Ne.  and  in  Ne.  ii^  There  is  no  other  light  on  this 
class,  and  we  have  no  sure  indication  of  their  origin  or  func- 
tions. As  they  are  grouped  so  closely  with  the  Nethinim,  but 
one  number  being  given  for  the  two  classes,  it  is  probable  that 
their  office  was  much  the  same. 

There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  Torrey's  statement  that  this  body  is 
a  subdivision  of  the  Neth.  {Comp.*");  it  would  be  more  analagous  to  re- 
gard them  as  a  subdivision  of  the  Lev.  They  are  grouped  with  the  pr. 
Lev.  and  Neth.  in  Ne.  11'  as  dwelling  in  their  own  cities.  The  Bible 
throws  no  further  light  on  them.  Torrey  regards  the  name  as  evidence 
of  the  Chr.'s  habit  of  tracing  temple  institutions  back  to  the  great  kings 
who  established  the  temple  ritual  (op.  cil.).  Baudissin  notes  that  Sol- 
omon put  the  surviving  Canaanites  to  forced  service  (i  K.  9^0  f.)  ^^iA 
presumes  this  postex.  body  to  be  a  survival  from  that  time   {DB. 


EZRA    2 1-^3  91 

iv,''*^).  Taylor  also  regards  them  as  foreigners  like  the  Neth.,  and  for 
the  same  reason,  viz.,  the  presence  of  foreign  names.  All  that  we  can 
say  with  any  great  degree  of  probability  is  that  the  "servants  of  Sol- 
omon" was  an  unimportant  body  of  temple  servants  which  grew  up 
in  the  period  of  the  second  temple  and  then  soon  disappeared  as  a 
separate  class.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Neth.  are  often  mentioned 
without  them,  and  there  is  no  ground  for  holding,  as  Taylor  does, 
that  in  such  cases  they  are  included  with  the  Neth.  It  is,  however, 
prob.  that  they  are  mentioned  in  the  Aram,  section  (Ez.  724),  where 
after  pr.  Lev.  singers,  porters,  and  Neth.  there  is  added  "servants 
of  the  house  of  God."  That  may  be  another  name  for  the  servants 
of  Solomon  and  would  further  define  their  office.  There  are  but  ten 
names  in  the  list,  and  there  is  but  one  name  found  elsw.  (Shephatiah), 
and  there  is  the  same  tendency  to  Aram,  terminations  that  was  noted 
in  the  case  of  the  Neth. 

55.  ncSa'  nap].  The  Gk.  translators  were  as  much  perplexed  about 
this  title  as  their  modern  followers.  ^  gives  here  a  partial  translitera- 
tion, ApST^asX;  in  v.  ^^  AffeSTja£>.[ji,a,  but  ^  has  ApSirjasXtAa:  in  this  case 
the  whole  thing  was  taken  as  a  n.  p.,  for  the  translators  did  not  see  the 
name  Solomon.  This  agrees  with  Peshito,  which  eliminates  the  office 
entirely.  In  other  cases  (S  gives  SoOXwv  ZiaXcotAwv,  or  xotiouv  H.  Q^^  in 
Esd.  533. 35)_ — it3D]  Ne.  ''taiD  (5  offers  every  variety  of  vocalisation  Sa-ret 
(^  in  Ezr.)  =  iqd,  Sou-uet  {^^  in  Ne.)  =  ■'WID,  and  Swuat  (^  in  Ezr.  and  ^ 
always).  The  name  is  lacking  in  Esd.^*. — msDn]  Ne.  msD.'  d  sup- 
ports Ezr.,  for  though  ^^^  agree  with  Ne.  in  that  passage,  ^  has  AaoyspsO, 
and  a  similar  form  is  found  in  Ezr.  and  Esd.  in  all  texts. — xnnc]  Ne. 
N"(nfl  supported  by  (S  in  Ne.  ®  <i>aSoupa  in  Ezr.  and  '-  in  each  case 
=  x-iTiD.  On  the  basis  of  this  evidence  any  one  of  the  three  forms  is 
possible:  Perudah,  Pereidah,  or  Pedurah. — 56.  nSy-']  Ne.  n'S;*\  In  Ezr. 
we  find  le-^Xa^,  leXa'^,  IsoXaa'-;  in  Ne.  IsX-qk^,  lexrfk^^,  IsoaXaa^;  in 
Esd.  IstYiXst^,  hriki^,  leSXaa^.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  name  could 
have  been  at  the  bottom  of  all  these  variants. — h•\^]  occurs  elsw.  only 
among  the  Neth.,  v. ".  ^^  has  SaSBat,  Esd.^^.  l^ZariX.  As  the  re- 
currence of  a  single  name  is  doubtful,  prob.  MT.  has  lost  the  original 
name  which  might  have  been  nb. 

57.  niastf]  ("  Yahweh  judges")  is  a  good  Heb.  name,  and  well  at- 
tested by  05,  though  in  Esd.  we  find  2a<pu£c^,  Sa9uGt'^.  The  name 
occurs  as  one  of  David's  sons  (2  S.  3^;  one  of  the  enemies  of  Jer.  (Je. 
38^);  one  of  the  lay  chiefs,  v.'';  and  of  various  other  persons,  i  Ch. 
q8  125  2716  2  Ch.  21^  Ezr.  8'  Ne.  ii^.  On  account  of  the  familiarity  of 
this  name,  it  is  suspicious  in  this  list. — a^asn  msfl]  (Ne.  D^jsn)  "  the 
binder  of  the  gazelles"  (BDB.).  In  spite  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  name 
and  its  anomalous  character  in  this  list,  the  Gk.  texts  afford  no  real  help. 
Esd.'''^  5^^  has  eight  additional  names  at  this  point,  each  preceded  by 
u\oi:  SapwOei,  Mecaatott;,  V(xq,  ASSouq,  Soupots,  A^eppa,  BapwSst^,  Sajotv. 


92  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

These  names  were  scarcely  invented  by  a  translator,  but  where  he  got 
them  it  is  not  possible  to  say. — ''Dn]  Ne.  jisn.  ^  supports  Ezr.;  ^  has 
A[j.eet  in  every  case;  ^^  Htist  (Ezr.)  HyLstji  (Esd.).  Perhaps  the  original 
was  i'DN,  changed  in  Ne.  to  the  more  familiar  prN. — 58.  d^  in  Ezr. 
and  Esd.  has  372  instead  of  392.     ^  agrees  with  Heb. 

59-63.  =  Ne.  7''"^'  Esd.  5'^'^°.  A  supplementary  Ust  of 
those  whose  genealogy  could  not  be  accurately  traced. 

There  is  first  a  list  of  the  laity,  v.  6",  an  appendix  to  vv.  '-'5;  then  of 
pr.,  V. ",  an  appendix  to  vv.  "^■^^.  As  these  pr.  were  unable  to  find  a 
record  of  their  genealogy,  they  were  deprived  of  the  emoluments  of  their 
office  by  order  of  the  governor  until  a  pr.  should  arise  for  the  Urim  and 
Thummim,  that  is,  with  the  oracular  apparatus  and  power. 

59.  Now  these  are  those  who  went  upfront  Tel-Meleh,  etc.].  It 
is  assumed  that  the  places  are  in  Babylonia,  but  not  one  of 
them  occurs  elsewhere,  and  two  are  quite  suspicious,  Kerub  and 
Immer.  It  is  likely  from  the  inability  of  these  people  to  trace 
their  connections,  that  they  were  from  small  places  in  Baby- 
lonia, and  our  ignorance  of  the  names,  therefore,  should  not  im- 
pugn their  accuracy. — The  house  of  their  fathers  and  their  stock 
whether  they  were  of  Israel],  The  first  words  would  imply  that 
a  very  exact  genealogy  was  required,  but  the  following  qualify- 
ing expression  shows  that  the  purpose  was  simply  to  determine 
the  question  of  nationality.  Meyer  infers  that  these  men  had 
the  position  of  proselytes  (£;z/."°).  They  may  have  come  from 
the  mixed  marriages  which  figure  in  the  history  of  the  period 
(Ezr.  g/.  Ne.  13).  Smend  recalls  the  nomadic  Rechabites  who 
had  come  into  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  siege  (Je.  35),  and 
thinks  that  these  people  may  have  lived  in  a  distant  part  of 
Babylonia  (Listen,^^).  Stock  or  seed  is  used  very  frequently  of 
descendants,  rarely  as  here  of  ancestors.  "Seed  of  Abraham" 
is  often  used  in  a  national  sense,  being  equivalent  to  Israel 
(Ps.  105^);  and  seed  alone  is  apparently  used  with  the  same 
meaning  in  Est.  lo^  That  would  give  a  good  sense  here,  so 
that  we  might  render  their  genealogy  and  their  race. — 60.  Since 
the  heads  of  the  clans  are  given,  Delaiah,  Tobiah,  and  Nekodah, 
the  question  must  have  been  whether  these  chiefs  were  Israelites 
or  not.    Delaiah  is  a  well-established  Hebrew  name  ("  Yahweh 


EZRA    2^-^' 


93 


has  drawn"),  and  was  borne  by  a  priest  of  David's  time  (i  Ch. 
241^),  by  one  of  the  princes  before  whom  Jeremiah  was  tried  (Je. 
36^2),  and  by  a  descendant  of  Zerubbabel  (i  Ch.  3^^;  cf.  Ne.  6^°). 
The  same  may  be  said  of  Tobiah  ("Yahweh  is  good"),  though 
it  was  the  name  of  one  of  Nehemiah's  enemies,  and  he  was  an 
Ammonite.  Nekodah  is  found  elsewhere  only  among  the  Nethi- 
nim,  v.^^.  Ne.  has  642  instead  of  652  in  Ezr.;  (B  agrees  with  Ezr. 
— 61.  And  of  the  sons  of  the  priests].  With  Ne.  omit  the  sons  of. 
Though  Ezr.  has  some  support,  it  is  a  faulty  construction,  and 
doubtless  the  error  of  a  scribe.  The  names  of  three  priests  are 
given  as  belonging  to  this  class,  but  the  number  is  not  given  in 
any  text.  Habaiah  does  not  occur  elsewhere.  Hakkos  occurs 
in  Ne.  3''-  ^^,  as  grandfather  of  one  of  the  wall-builders.  Bertho- 
let  notes  that  this  clan  is  deemed  legitimate  in  Ne.  3^-  21,  whence 
he  argues  for  the  priority  of  this  list  {Es.  Neh.^).  Meyer  iden- 
tifies Hakkos  with  a  guild  of  Ezra's  time  (Ezr.  8^^,  Ent.™). 
Without  the  article  {Kos)  it  is  given  as  the  name  of  a  Judean 
(i  Ch.  4*).  Barzillai  is  the  name  of  a  well-known  Gileadite, 
mentioned  further  on  in  this  verse,  who  was  the  benefactor  of 
David  when  he  fled  from  Absolom  (2  S.  17^^  et  pass.). 

A  Barzillai  is  also  mentioned  in  2  S.  218  as  the  father  of  Michal's 
husband,  but  there  are  so  many  errors  in  the  v.  that  this  name  may  be 
wrong.  The  name  is  Aram.  {v.  Smith,  Bud.  on  2  S.  17")-  This  Bar- 
zillai, head  of  a  priestly  guild,  had  taken  the  name  because  he  had  mar- 
ried into  the  family  of  the  famous  Gileadite.  Perhaps  the  name  had 
been  used  first  as  what  we  call  a  nickname.  It  was  given  in  mature 
life  after  the  man  was  married.  Seis.  suggests  that  this  daughter  was 
an  heiress  and  that  the  name  was  taken  to  secure  the  fortune.  But  he 
offers  no  proof  to  support  the  theory  that  the  name  must  go  with  the 
fortune.  Daughters,  like  sons,  means  the  descendants  of  Barzillai.  As 
Barzillai's  son  went  to  David's  court,  the  family  became  an  important 
one,  and  such  a  tradition  as  we  have  here  might  long  have  persisted. 
It  surely  is  not  the  Chr.'s  invention.  The  importance  of  the  family 
is  further  shown  by  the  husband's  taking  his  name  from  its  founder. 
The  number  of  these  pr.  is  not  given;  Jos.,  not  satisfied  to  acknowledge 
the  defect,  says  there  were  about  525  (Ant.  xi,  3,  10). 

62.  These  sought  their  register  among  those  that  were  reckoned 
by  genealogy,  but  they  were  not  found].     So  ARV.     But  this  is 


94  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

taking  liberty  with  the  text  in  an  effort  to  get  sense;  even  so, 
the  result  at  the  end  is  not  satisfactory.  BDB.  renders:  "  These 
sought  their  writing,  namely,  the  enrolled,''^  i.  e.,  "  their  genealog- 
ical record."  But  the  text  requires  a  slight  correction  and  then 
we  get  good  sense:  These  searched  for  their  record,  but  their  enrol- 
ment was  not  found. — A  tid  they  were  barred  (literally,  desecrated) 
from  the  priesthood],  because  they  could  find  no  record  showing 
priestly  descent.  This  is  evidently  a  different  matter  from  the 
question  of  nationality  (v.  ^'^),  for  there  is  no  question  of  race, 
but  only  of  official  standing.  In  his  usual  way  of  confusing 
things,  the  Chronicler  has  brought  together  here  quite  unre- 
lated matters,  which  probably  belong  to  entirely  different  peri- 
ods, though  both  incidents  seem  to  be  authentic. — 63.  And  the 
governor  said]  (or  perhaps  "his  Excellency").  The  case  was 
settled  by  a  decree  of  the  ci\dl  ruler,  not  by  a  high  priest.  Who 
the  governor  was  we  do  not  know;  it  is  generally  assumed  to 
be  Sheshbazzar,*  but  this  thing  happened  long  after  Sheshbaz- 
zar's  time.  If  the  name  had  been  known  to  the  writer  of  the 
underlying  original  it  would  surely  have  been  given  here.  Esd. 
5^"  supplies  the  name  Nehemiah,  perhaps  because  this  unusual 
word  for  governor  is  elsewhere  applied  to  him  (Ne.  8^  lo^) ;  but 
Nehemiah  seems  to  have  concerned  himself  very  little  with  the 
affairs  of  the  priesthood.  The  conjecture  of  the  Greek  writer 
warns  us  that  the  identification  is  far  from  assured. — Unto  them] 
cannot  be  right,  unless  we  regard  the  construction  as  a  loose 
one,  changing  to  the  indirect  discourse;  we  should  expect,  ye 
shall  not  eat,  instead  of  that  they  should  not  eat.  But  C5  supports 
the  text  as  it  is,  and  it  may  pass. — From  the  holy  of  holies].  But 
"holy  of  holies"  means  the  inner  part  of  the  temple  in  the 
earlier  literature,  though  in  P  and  Ez.  it  applies  also  to  sac- 
rificial food.  Gray  has  shown  that  "holy"  and  "holy  of 
holies"  are  used  rather  indifferently  {Nu.'^'^'^).  Esd.  5*°  has 
from  the  holy  things.  That  is  preferred  by  Kittel. — Until  a 
priest  stood  for  Urim  and  Thummim].  The  meaning  is  clearly 
that  the  unrecorded  priests  must  refrain  from  exercising  their 
functions  imtil  there  should  be  one  qualified  to  give  a  divinely 

•  E.  g.,  Kue.  Abh.^,  Mey.  £«/.'" ;  but  Zer.  B.-Rys. 


EZRA    21-S3  95 

guided  decision.    The  decision  was  to  come  from  a  priest  using 
the  Urim  and  Thummim. 

In  I  Mac.  4"  a  question  about  the  stones  of  a  defiled  altar  was  post- 
poned "until  the  advent  of  a  prophet  to  give  an  answer  concerning 
them."  The  matter  is  not  one  of  relative  time,  for  both  methods  of 
divination  were  used,  that  is,  by  prophetic  oracles  and  by  pr.  There 
was  this  difiference,  that  the  prophet  always  gave  a  reply  supposed  to 
be  by  direct  divine  enhghtenment,  while  the  pr.  determined  the  question 
by  some  instrument  as  the  ephod,  or  by  Urim  and  Thummim.  The 
last  method  is  obscure,  but  apparently  some  way  of  casting  the  sacred 
lot  is  meant.  One  might  naturally  ask  why  this  could  not  be  done  now, 
since  pr.  aboimded.  Mey.  e.^plains  this  difficulty  by  supposing  that 
the  art  of  casting  the  lot  had  been  lost  in  the  postex.  community,  and 
would  be  restored  only  by  the  advent  of  the  Messianic  rule  (Ent.^^*,  so 
Smith  on  i  S.  i4''0-  But  such  divination  would  be  required  during 
the  exile  as  well  as  at  other  times,  and  it  would  be  more  natural  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  mng.  some  peculiar  priestly  appa- 
ratus, had  been  lost,  prob.  in  the  destruction  of  the  temple.  It  must 
be  confessed,  however,  that  a  strict  construction  of  the  words  rather 
favours  Mey.'s  view,  since  the  desideratum  is  "a  pr.  for  the  Urim  and 
Thimimim";  otherwise  we  should  expect  "until  Urim  and  Thummim 
appear  for  the  pr."  It  is  possible  that  the  loss  was  due  to  the  absence 
of  Lev.  or  their  deterioration.  From  Dt.  .33'  it  would  appear  that 
this  method  of  divination  was  practised  by  the  Lev.,  and  with  the  dis- 
esteem  of  this  guild  the  art  may  have  been  lost,  at  least  so  far  as 
this  early  period  in  Judah  is  concerned. 

Berth,  says  the  fact  that  there  was  no  pr.  capable  of  using  this  method 
of  divination,  but  that  it  was  expected  that  one  might  arise,  points  to 
the  earliest  stage  in  the  new  community  where  there  was  prob.  no  high 
pr.  (so  Sm.  Listen,^^).  The  sacred  lot  was  used,  he  says,  in  later  times 
(c/.  Jos.  Ant.  iii,  8,  9,  Sirach  36'). 

There  is  an  elaborate  treatment  of  Urim  and  Thummim  in  AJSL. 
j6i93ff.  by  Muss-Arnolt.  He  identifies  the  divination  by  the  ephod 
with  that  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  and  connects  with  the  Bab. 
"tablets  of  destiny"  and  explains  the  words  as  derived  from  the  Bab. 
u'uru,  "command,"  and  himmu,  "oracle."  If  a  signification  is  to  be 
invented,  it  would  be  well  to  seek  something  more  appropriate,  such 
as  "favourable"  and  "unfavourable."    On  the  use  v.  i. 

69.  Sn]  is  As.,  "hill  of  ruins,"  and  applied  to  mounds  which  are 
sites  of  ancient  cities.  As  part  of  n.  p.  in  OT.  only  in  Tel-Abib  (Ez. 
3"))  a  place  in  Bab. — ans]  is  the  name  of  a  spiritual  being,  common  in 
pi.,  cherubim.  As  a  n.  pr.  loc.  it  is  dub.  Esd.  joins  with  the  word 
following:  xo'P««Oa^o^''j  X^poup'^avK  It  might  be  a  metathesis  for 
133  (Ez.  I'),  identified  by  Hilprecht  as  a  canal  near  Nippur,  Kabaru 


96  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

(Murashu Sons,  ix/O- — ?"^n]  Ne.  piN  (g  H5av  favours  Ezr.,  though  in  Ne. 
^  has  Hpwv. — idn]  Ne.  "loxi  is  a  common  priestly  name,  but  improb. 
as  a  Bab.  n.  pr.  loc. — Kerub,  Addan  and  Immer]  have  been  explained  as 
n.  p.,  the  preceding  n.  pr.  loc.  being  marked  by  the  prefixed  tel,  which 
is  not  found  with  these  three;  but  the  n.  p.  are  given  in  vv.  <">  '■,  and 
could  not  belong  here  unless  text  is  disarranged.  Esd.  s^e  yields  bet- 
ter results  than  MT.:  their  leaders  were  Charathalan  and  Allar.  Guthe 
emends  on  this  basis,  thus: /row  Tel-Meleh  and  from  Tel-Harsha :  Kerub- 
Addan  and  Immer  were  their  leaders.  'HYo6[xevo?  au-uwv  (Esd.)  =  db'ni, 
and  this  could  easily  be  corrupted  to  Nifin.  3  Esd.  shows  same  text: 
principes  eorum.  This  reading  suggests  that  the  people  described  in 
w.  "-"  constituted  an  independent  caravan. — 60.  <S^  has  a  fourth 
name,  Boua.     Esd.^^  has  but  two  names,  Aaav,  Baevav. 

61.  Esd.^^  53'  has  an  explanatory  +  these  laid  claim  to  the  priest- 
hood, and  did  not  obtain  it. — ^;3n]  Ne.  non  a  reading  adopted  by  Baer 
but  not  by  Kittel.  (&  gives  various  forms,  among  which  are  Ap(e)ta 
{^^-  in  Ne.)  and  Og^staB,  O^StaA  (in  Esd.)  and  QSouta^  (in  Ezr.  and 
Esd.).  The  variants  make  Heb.  suspicious,  but  do  not  afford  material 
for  a  restoration. — Tipn]  is  unusually  well  attested  in  CI,  the  only  sig- 
nificant variation  being  Ax^gx;  (Esd.^),  but  there  is  doubt  about  the 
pointing,  as  we  find  Ax(x)ou(;  in  Ezr.  and  in  Ne.^  {i.  e.,  K-ipn). — >Sn3] 
Esd.  53s  reads  Jaddous  (Jaddua)  who  took  to  wife  Augia  of  the  daughters 
of  Phaezeldaius  and  he  was  called  by  his  name,  an  evident  confusion  of  a 
simple  passage.  The  interesting  point  is  the  name  of  the  wife.  What 
havoc  is  made  of  names  by  metathesis  is  shown  by  ^:  Zap^sXOei  in 
the  first  occurrence,  but  BepI^eXXaet  in  the  second. — ddb'].  With  Guthe 
rd.  iDty  as  antecedent  is  Barzillai. — 62.  Some  correction  of  the  text 
is  required.  Those  who  are  enrolled  by  genealogy  cannot  be  in  app. 
with  their  register,  and  in  fact  there  is  no  grammatical  construction 
at  all.  (6  offers  great  variety;  ^^  transliterates  o\  ixeBweaet'iJ,;  ^  ol 
Yev£aXoyouvTe(;  (so  in  Ne.);  Ne.^-*^  has  their  writing  of  the  caravan 
(or  company).  Esd.  5''  renders  Iv  xy  v.(zx(x\ofia[L(b:  Esd.  yields:  the 
genealogical  writing  of  these  being  sought  in  the  register,  and  not  being 
found,  they  were  restrained  from  their  office.  This  makes  good  sense,  but 
it  shows  merely  a  free  handling  of  the  same  text.  By  a  slight  transpo- 
sition we  can  restore  the  text,  putting  the  inf.  before  the  ptc,  and  read- 
ing sg.  as  Ne.:  ksdj  oa-ninn  nSi,  these  searched  for  their  record,  but  their 
enrolment  was  not  found.  The  ptc.  oicninnn  does  not  occur  elsw.,  and 
inf.  is  used  regularly  in  late  Heb.  mng.  genealogy  or  enrolment  (Ne, 
7'  I  Ch.  4"  5'  7=  e/  pass.).  We  then  have  a  suitable  subj.  lor  found. 
The  rendering  "they  [the  pr.]  were  not  found"  does  not  give  the  right 
idea,  for  the  mng.  is  that  the  pedigrees  could  not  be  found. — iSnj'>i] 
means  defile  (ARV."  "polluted  from  the  priesthood").  But  v.", 
which  is  a  further  statement  about  the  case  of  these  pr.,  shows  that 
they  were  simply  barred  from  service  until  a  pr.  arose  with  authority 


EZRA   2i-«9  97 

to  adjudicate  the  matter.  Further  we  find  the  term  used  in  Mai. 
I'-  "  (only  other  use  of  Pu.)  where  the  defiUng  is  not  actual.  There 
was  no  formal  deposition  or  desecration  from  ofSce,  but  only  a  sus- 
pension. 

63.  Nna'inn]  is  found  elsw.  in  Ne.  765.69  gs  io=,  in  the  last  two  pas- 
sages prob.  interpolated.  (S  takes  it  as  a  n.  p.  'AGepaaa,  'AaspaaOa, 
but  Esd.  s*"  Natpitai;  xal  AT6otptaq^,  NeefAtoK;  6  %a.\  Aiaptxabatq'^.  The 
word  is  Pers.,  Tarsata,  but  the  exact  definition  is  not  clear.  Moss 
regards  it  as  referring  to  a  royal  commissioner  (DB.  iv,"'  ^).  Mey. 
holds  that  it  is  not  the  name  of  an  office  like  governor,  but  rather  a 
title,  "his  Excellency"  {Ent.^^*)  or  "his  Reverence,"  as  Moss  suggests. 
— ntys']  is  here  used  as  a  simple  conj.  The  word  is  little  more  than  a 
mark  of  relation  as  inverted  commas  are  a  mark  of  a  quotation;  this 
is  a  common  usage,  the  word  being  translatable  by  many  different 
EngUsh  conjs. — iVsni]  Esd.  54"  [aetIxs'v  "share  in."  This  text  also  ren- 
ders last  part  of  v.  a  high  priest  [priesi^]  clothed  ivith  the  manifesta- 
tion and  the  truth. — po]  Ne.*^  pon  a  reading  preferred  by  Kittel,  but 
Esd.  supports  Ezr.  Urim  and  Thwnmim  are  found  here  only  without 
the  art.  The  words  are  usually  (Ex.  aS^"  Lv.  8'  Dt.  338),  but  not 
always  (i  S.  286  Nu.  27")  joined.  The  best  explanation  of  the  usage 
is  found  in  the  restored  text  of  i  S.  14",  "and  Saul  said  unto  Yahweh 
the  God  of  Israel,  why  dost  thou  not  answer  thy  servant  to-day:  if 
this  guilt  be  on  me  or  on  Jonathan  my  son,  O  Yahweh  the  God  of  Israel, 
give  Urim,  but  if  this  guilt  be  on  thy  people  Israel  give  Thummim." 
Urim  and  Thummim  would  then  be  two  objects  drawn  out  of  some 
place  by  the  pr.,  one  mng.  "yes"  and  the  other  "no."  The  usage  was 
apparently  early,  and  was  quite  unknown  exc.  historically  in  the 
postex.  age  (r/.  Bud.  on  i  S.  14",  DB.  and  BDB.,  where  other  refer- 
ences are  given). 

64-67  =  Ne.  7""-""  Esd.  5^'-«.  The  total  figures  of  the 
census. — It  appears  that  the  Judeans  had  a  large  number  of 
slaves,  male  and  female,  besides  736  horses,  245  mules,  435 
camels,  and  6,120  asses. 

64.  All  the  company  together  (literally,  as  one)].  The  word  ^HD 
means  community,  the  sacred  congregatmi,  or  company.  It  re- 
fers to  an  organised  body  and  suggests  a  date  later  than  Cyrus. 
The  total  is  42,360  or  42,308  {^^  in  Ne.).  Esd.  $^^  contains  a 
limiting  clause,  reading:  The  whole  Israel  from  ten  years  and 
upward  besides  slaves  and  women  (L):  from  twelve  years  besides 
male  and  female  slaves  {^^).  The  latter  is  the  better  text,  and 
accepted  by  Guthe,  for  if  slaves  and  women  had  been  men- 


98  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

tioned  we  should  have  expected  to  find  a  further  statement 
about  women  as  well  as  about  slaves.  65.  And  they  had  245 
(200  in  Ezr.)  singers  and  songstresses].  These  are  not  the  tem- 
ple singers,  for  they  have  been  already  enumerated  in  v.  *^,  and 
women  were  excluded  from  the  temple  service. 

Therefore  the  reading  nna"  "songstresses"  of  the  temple  in  Am.  8% 
though  adopted  by  We.,  is  scarcely  possible.  The  form  m-nB>D  occurs 
only  here,  and  the  m.  without  the  art.  occurs  elsw.  only  in  2  Ch.  20". 
All  the  (S  texts  have  the  words,  and  therefore  such  an  emendation  as 
"bulls  and  cows"  has  no  support. 

The  true  explanation  is  not  far  to  seek.  In  2  S.  19^^,  where 
curiously  Barzillai  is  the  speaker,  there  is  named  among  the 
pleasures  of  the  court  "the  voice  of  singers  and  songstresses." 
In  Eccl.  2^  we  have  the  same  singers  and  songstresses  mentioned 
among  the  various  pleasures  which  Koheleth  had  sought.  They 
were  men  and  women  employed  by  kings  and  nobles  for  enter- 
tainment. And  they  had,  is  lacking  in  Esd.  and  may  be  a  gloss 
added  here  to  serve  as  a  connecting  link.  Siegfried  argues  that 
the  number  should  be  245,  as  Ne.  7*^^,  so  Zillessen,  ZAW.  1904,^*^. 
67.  Four  hundred  and  thirty-five  camels]  seems  a  large  number 
for  a  company  as  poor  as  these  exiles  were,  ^^  in  Ne.  mentions 
2,700  asses  and  omits  the  other  animals  altogether.  The  best 
Mss.  of  MT.  lack  the  horses  and  mules  of  our  text  {v.  Kittel  and 
Berth.).    The  text  has  been  changed  to  agree  with  Ezr. 

64.  iriH^].  In  early  Heb.  ^^^•  e'ind  is  used  to  express  joint  action, 
c.  g.,  "all  the  people  rose  as  one  man"  (Ju.  208).  The  text  shows  a  late 
usage.  The  mng.  required  here  is  "combined,"  which  in  early  Heb. 
would  be  nn>.  The  word  is  unnecessary  and  is  stricken  out  by  Guthe. 
— 65.  nnitt'Di  oma'D].  As  these  words  are  followed  directly  by  the  list 
of  animals,  it  has  been  proposed  to  rd.  nnoi  onitf  "bulls  and  cows." 
This  is  rejected  by  Halevy  on  the  ground  that  these  animals  could 
not  live  in  the  journey  across  the  desert  {J  A.  Nov  .-Dec.  iSgg,"^). 
We  should  prob.  rd.  as  2  S.  iS^s  2  Ch.  35=*  Eccl.  2^  nnifi  onir  as 
the  same  class  of  professional  singers  is  meant.  The  writer  has  mis- 
taken the  word  to  mean  temple  singers  and  modified  it  accordingly. 
Fischer  argues  for  the  early  date  of  the  list  from  the  mention  of  these 
classes,  for  he  says  they  would  soon  be  scattered  after  the  return  so  that 
a  census  would  be  impossible  {Chr.  Fragen,'^^). — 67.  onncn]  must  be 


EZRA    2'-^9  99 

rd.  as  we  have  their  horses,  etc.,  so  ^^^  in  Ezr.,  C6'-  in  both.  (^^  in 
Ne.  mentions  no  other  animals  than  the  asses. — xm]  "myriad,"  "ten 
thousand,"  is  common  in  poste.x.  Heb.,  but  is  not  found  earlier;  for 
Kt.  131  (Hos.  8")  is  better  rd.  as  Qr.  o-i,  though  Harper  accepts  former 
(ICC). — dh^Sdj]  is  preferable  to  d^'Soj  of  Ne. 

This  last  part  of  the  list  (vv.  ^s-sa)  offers  peculiar  difSculty  to  the 
interpreter.  If  we  supposed  the  list  to  be  early,  we  should  be  puzzled 
to  know  how  this  company  of  pilgrims  got  more  than  7,000  slaves,  245 
singers  for  entertainment,  and  a  large  number  of  animals.  The  knowl- 
edge we  have  of  this  period  all  suggests  a  people  few  in  number  and  poor 
in  worldly  goods.  In  Neh.'s  time  there  were  a  few  slaves,  but  these 
were  Hebrews  reduced  to  that  condition  by  poverty.  Neh.  struggled 
hard  against  the  system  by  which  the  poor  were  sold  into  slavery. 
After  his  rule  ended,  the  system  may  have  had  a  free  hand,  so  that  by 
Ezra's  time  there  may  have  been  7,000  slaves  in  the  Judean  province. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  some  reason  for  believing  the  list  itself 
to  be  composite,  a  growth  resulting  from  additions.  The  priestly  part 
esp.  bears  traces  of  lateness  in  the  close  agreement  of  all  the  texts. 

68  f.  =  Ne.  7^^"'  Esd.  5^"'-.    A  list  of  contributions— As 

shown  below,  in  Ne.  the  gifts  come  from  the  governor,  the  chiefs, 
and  the  people.  Ne.  says  nothing  about  the  temple,  but  only 
says  the  gifts  are  for  the  workers.  Here  the  temple  is  the  ob- 
ject for  which  the  contributions  are  made. — 68.  When  they  came 
to  the  house  of  Yahweh,  which  is  in  Jerusalem].  These  words 
imply  that  the  temple  was  already  built,  and  w^ould  require  us 
to  date  the  passage  later  than  515.  But  the  following  expres- 
sion, to  set  it  upon  its  site]  implies  just  the  contrary.  We  must 
regard  the  words  as  a  later  gloss.  As  we  find  first  "house  of 
Yahweh,"  then  "house  of  God,"  we  may  suspect  different  hands 
in  the  gloss. — They  made  free-will  oferings  for  the  house  of  God]. 
The  purpose  is  plainly  indicated  by  what  follows,  to  set  it  upon 
its  site,  i.  e.,  to  rebuild  it  where  it  was,  on  the  spot  where  Yah- 
weh had  in  ancient  time  placed  his  name. — 69.  They  gave  ac- 
cording to  their  ability].  Even  if  we  took  the  figures  of  the  re- 
turned literally  (v.  ^*),  the  ability  of  these  people  would  not 
explain  the  vast  total  of  perhaps  a  half-million  dollars  (v.  Mey. 
Ent.^^*  ff).  All  the  information  drawn  from  the  best  sources 
shows  that  the  restored  community  was  poor. — To  the  treasury 
of  the  work],  intended  here  to  refer  to  the  treasury  of  the  build- 


lOO  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ing   fund. — Priests^  tunics].    The   tunic  was  a  long  garment, 
something  like  a  wrapper.     It  was  worn  by  men  and  women. 

The  same  word  is  used  for  Joseph's  famous  coat  (Gn.  37'),  and  for 
the  robe  of  office  which  Is.  declared  Shebna  would  be  required  to  take 
off  (Is.  222').  On  this  garment,  v.  DB.  i,«24,  Benz.  Arch.^^^-,  Now. 
Arch,  i,"'-  •".  The  pr.'s  tunic  was  made  of  linen  (Lv.  i6<)  and  was 
embroidered  (Ex.  28^).  In  shape  it  was  like  that  worn  by  laymen.  In 
Zc.  3'  we  have  a  picture  of  Jes.  clothed  in  soiled  garments,  interpreted 
usually  in  a  fig.  sense  (e.  g.,  by  Mar.  and  G.  A.  Smith);  but  Ew.  re- 
ferred the  vision  to  the  investiture  of  the  pr.  in  new  robes  which  had 
just  come  from  Bab.  Modern  interpreters  have  scarcely  improved  on 
Ew.  In  the  postex.  period  pr.'  garments  would  naturally  be  scarce 
and  therefore  suitable  for  gifts. 

68.  mjnn]  Esd.  5"  eui;avTo  =  i-njnn  though  the  Hithp.  of  -\-\:  is 
not  found.  Our  preference  for  one  or  the  other  will  depend  upon 
our  conception  of  the  purpose  of  the  gifts,  whether  for  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple  (Ezr.)  or  the  maintenance  of  the  service  after  the  temple 
was  built  (Ne.). — i^in]  means  treasure,  ixin  p^j  Ne.  10'',  treasury,  but 
nia  is  often  omitted  as  here. — 69.  naN^nn].  Mey.  holds  that  this  word 
means  here  worship  {Gottesdienst)  {Ent.^^*-  ''O-  The  word  applies  to 
many  kinds  of  work,  but  the  term  is  always  general.  In  i  K  52"  it  is  the 
work  of  temple-building,  and  that  sense  is  meant  by  the  Chr.  here;  in  2 
Ch.  29'^  the  work  is  killing  animals  preparatory  to  sacrifice;  in  Ne.  it  is 
used  many  times  of  the  wall-building.  When  it  means  religious  work 
it  is  usually  qualified  as  "service  of  the  house  of  our  God"  (Ne.  lo'^). 
The  passages  esp.  cited  by  Mey.  are  Ne.  2"  13'°,  but  in  both  cases  the 
idea  is  "engaged  in  business,"  secular  emplo3rment.  The  importance 
of  the  question  lies  in  the  fact  that  Mey.  contends  that  this  passage 
precedes  the  building  of  the  temple.  The  character  of  the  gifts  shows 
that  Mey.  is  right  in  one  respect,  though  he  is  wrong  in  another.  The 
pr.'  garments  and  the  bowls  (Ne.  7")  would  serve  for  the  worship, 
not  for  the  rebuilding.  These  gifts  show  that  the  passage  followed  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple,  though  R.  has  made  it  seem  otherwise  in  Ezr. 
— D''OiDDTi]  CS  lAval^  SpaxP'-os?'^^'  The  authorities  are  divided,  some  con- 
necting with  Pers.  dark,  others  with  Gk.  drachma,  itself  of  foreign 
origin  {v.  BDB.  DB.  iii,<")_  gfn  g^ys  that  if  this  term  is  meant, 
the  word  must  have  been  introduced  later;  but  he  is  influenced  by 
his  belief  that  the  list  is  really  early  (Lislen,^^). — a^'jc].  This  is  a  Heb. 
weight  used  often  in  OT.  The  value  in  silver  is  c.  $30.  If  we  take  the 
drachma  instead  of  the  dark,  the  total  sum  given,  according  to  Ezr.,  is 
about  $300,000;  or  taking  the  daric,  about  $450,000.  The  figures  show 
the  hand  of  the  Chr.,  whose  fondness  for  large  numbers  is  apparent 
in  all  his  work. — ninz]  tiEx^^toO  Ne.^  xo8<»>^<^^'^'*>  ''■oQoiwl  Ezr.^  xitu- 


EZRA    2»-«9  lOI 

va?*.  ^  always  has  aioXacq,  which  is  also  found  in  Esd.  The  word 
means  tunic.  It  is  here  not  a  vestment  to  be  worn  only  at  religious 
exercises,  but  the  garment  worn  all  the  time. 

68  f.  Ezr.  and  Ne.  differ  widely,  No.  having  a  much  fuller  text,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  following  parallels  (including  Esd.) : 

Ne.  Some  of  the  heads  of  the  fathers  gave  for  the  work.    The  Tirshatha 

Ezr. 

Esd. 

Ne.  gave  to  the  treasury :  gold,  i,ooo  darics,  50  bowls,  530  prJ 
EzR. 

ESD. 

Ne.  tunics.    And  some  of  the  Jieads  of  the  fathers 
Ezr.  a  nd  some  of  the  heads  of  the  fathers,  when  they  came  to  the 

EsD.  And  some  of  the  leaders  according  to  their  family,  when 

they  came  to  the 

Ne. 

Ezr.  house  of  Yahweh,  which  is  in  Jems,  gave  free-will  oferingsfor 

Esd.  temple  of  God,       which  is  in  Jerus.  made  a  vow 

Ne. 

Ezr.  the  house  of  God,  to  set  it  upon  its  site.    According  to  their  ability 
Esd.  to  set  the  house  upon  its  site,  according  to  their 

ability 

Ne.  gave  ((6^  eOrjxav,  placed)  to  the  treasury  of  tlie  work  ((8^ 

Tou  £Tou<;,  yearly) :  gold,  20,000  darics,  and 
Ezr.  tlicy  gave  to  the  treasury  of  the  work :  gold,  61,000  darics,  and 
Esd.  a}id  to  give  to  the  holy  treasury  of  the  work :  gold,  1,000  mince,  and 

Ne.   silver,  2,200  mince.  And  what  the  rest 

Ezr.  silver,  5,000  mince,  atul  100  pr.^  tunics. 
Esd.  silver,  5,000  mince,  and  100  pr.'  tunics. 

Ne.  of  the  people  gave  was :  gold,  20,000  darics,  attd  silver,  2,000  mines 

Ezr. 

Esd. 

Ne.  ((S^a  lacks  the  passage  so  agreeing  with  Ezr.),  and  67  pr.'  tunics. 

Ezr. 

Esd. 

The  longer  text  is  very  systematic :  the  gifts  come  from  three  sources, 
the  governor,  the  chief,  and  the  people,  while  in  Ezr.  they  are  all  cred- 
ited to  the  chiefs.    The  table  makes  this  clear: 


I02  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 


GOLD 

SILVER 

ROBES 

BOWLS 

Ne. 

Governor 

I, GOO 

[5)30* 
((6  30  (^"^  33) 

SO 

Chiefs 

20,000 

2,200 

People 
Total 

20,000 
41,000 

2,000 

67 

97 

4,200 

(100  in  (6'-) 

Ezr. 

61,000 

5, 000 

100 

Esd. 

1,000 

5,000 

100 

Nowhere  in  this  section  do  we  find  so  great  a  discrepancy.  Ne. 
contains  two  statements  which  are  lacking  in  Ezr.:  (1)  30  of  the  pr.* 
garments  were  given  by  the  Tirshatha  and  the  others  by  "the  rest  of 
the  people,"  and  (2)  the  chiefs  and  the  people  each  gave  20,000  darics 
of  gold.  In  Ezr.  these  contributions  were  expressly  given  for  the  re- 
building of  the  temple,  which  in  Esd.  was  the  result  of  a  vow  made 
after  their  arrival  in  Jerus.,  a  statement  irreconcilable  with  Hg.  Ne. 
has  not  a  word  about  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  saying  simply  that 
the  offerings  were  "for  the  work,"  and  that  they  were  paid  into  a 
treasury.  Each  text  conforms  to  its  setting,  as  Ezr.  precedes  the 
temple-building  while  in  Ne.  we  are  getting  close  to  the  promulgation 
of  the  law  by  Ezra. 

Ne.  bears  unmistakable  signs  of  a  composite  origin,  for  we  have  the 
unusual  niaxn  ^rx-i  nspci  (Dn.  1=  being  the  only  parallel)  in  one  place, 
V. ",  and  nnsa  ^B'N-idi  as  Ezr.  in  another,  v.  '">;  in  v. "  we  have  they 
gave  for  the  work,  in  v.  "  they  gave  to  the  treasury  of  the  work,  and  again 
he  gave  to  the  treasury,  v. «'.  We  find  nm  tw,  v.  '">,  directly  followed  by 
N13T  ^nt;',  V.  ".  We  notice  further  that  the  passage  is  very  disjointed. 
The  first  statement,  "some  of  the  heads  of  the  fathers  gave  for  the 
work,"  V. ",  is  suspended  without  any  conclusion,  but  it  is  repeated 
in  V.  "">  with  a  suitable  continuation. 

In  Ezr.  we  find  the  clause  about  the  purpose  of  the  contributions 
pushed  in  between  the  subj.  and  the  vb.:  "and  some  of  the  heads  of  the 
fathers  [when  they  came  to  the  house  of  Yahweh  which  is  in  Jerus. 
made  free-will  offerings  for  the  house  of  God  to  place  it  upon  its  site 
according  to  their  ability]  gave  to  the  treasury  of  the  work."  In  Ne. 
the  subj.  and  vb.  are  directly  joined,  as  they  must  be;  therefore  we 
may  pronounce  positively  that  the  bracketed  passage  is  an  interpola- 
tion, inserted  by  the  Chr.  to  make  the  statement  agree  with  its  context, 
and  a  part  of  the  preparation  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple.  The 
whole  c.  is  therefore  unquestionably  later  than  the  time  of  Zer. 

The  text  of  Ne.  has  manifestly  been  edited  to  conform  to  Ezr.,  and 
yet  it  bears  traces  of  greater  originality.  Mey.  prefers  it  as  it  stands, 
*(&  has  30,  and  as  the  500  follows  the  30  in  the  text,  it  is  an  obvious  error. 


EZRi\    2 '0-4'  103 

an  evidence  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  text  criticism  upon  which  con- 
clusions have  been  drawn  (£«/.'"*  '•).  It  is  difficult  to  think  that  an 
editor  would  have  systematically  distributed  the  gifts  among  the  three 
classes,  the  governor,  the  chiefs,  and  the  rest  of  the  people.  If  we 
eliminate  the  part  that  is  common  and  two  prob.  glosses  we  get  a  sur- 
prisingly good  text:  and  some  of  the  heads  of  the  fathers  gave  for  the  work 
[the  Tirshatha  gave  into  the  treasury]  1,000  gold  darics,  50  howls,  [s\-,o 
pr.'  tunics.  And  the  rest  of  the  people  gave  20,000  gold  darics,  2,000  sil- 
ver mince,  and  67  pr.'  tunics.  When  the  passage  from  Ezr.  was  pushed 
in,  the  clause  bracketed  was  added  of  necessity.  (S  evidently  has  some 
clew  to  the  mystery  when  it  rd.  "to  Neh."  The  figures  are,  of  course, 
too  large,  but  we  cannot  rely  upon  the  text,  and  they  are  doubtless 
greatly  exaggerated. 

The  character  of  the  gifts  and  the  work  indicate  a  date  later  than 
515.  The  time  of  Ezra  is,  on  the  whole,  most  suitable.  Under  his 
rule  gifts  for  the  temple  would  be  sought  diligently,  and  from  the  great- 
ness of  his  influence  prob.  large  sums  would  be  obtained. 


EZR.  2^<'-4^   THE  HEBREW  STORY  OF  THE  REBUILDING  OF 
THE  TEMPLE. 

A  section  recovered. — In  MT.  the  period  of  Cy.  and  Shes.  ends  with 
c.  i;  for  c.  2  is  mostly  a  mere  table  of  names,  and  has  nothing  to  do 
with  that  period;  while  c.  3  brings  us  to  the  time  of  Zer.  and  Dar. 
Moreover,  c.  3  begins  in  medias  res,  "when  the  7th  month  approached." 
In  the  original  story  some  year  must  have  been  indicated.  Then  Zer., 
the  builder  of  the  temple,  appears  as  leader  without  a  word  of  intr. 
In  Esd.  we  have  quite  a  different  story.  There  is  a  long  narrative, 
3-5^  to  which  there  is  nothing  correspondent  in  MT.  Here  we  have 
the  tale  of  the  Three  Youths,  contesting  in  wisdom  before  Dar.,  the 
victory  of  one  who  proves  to  be  Zer.,  the  promise  of  King  Dar.  to  give 
him  whatever  he  asks,  the  reminder  of  his  vow  to  restore  the  vessels 
and  to  rebuild  the  city,  and  a  liberal  permit  from  the  king  to  under- 
take these  things,  with  a  brief  list  of  those  who  availed  themselves  of 
this  privilege. 

Torrey  has  made  the  brilliant  suggestion  that  we  have  imbedded  in 
this  story,  a  fragment  of  the  Chr.'s  original  narrative  (ES."  " ■  "^  «•). 
Torrey  believes  that  the  story  of  the  Three  Youths  ends  at  4<=,  that 
443-47a.  67-61  are  interpolations,  so  that  the  recovered  narrative  consists 
of  44"'-56  462-5S.  Torrey  has  painstakingly  retranslated  the  passage 
into  Heb.  and  appended  an  English  translation.  But  this  acute  scholar 
has  by  no  means  let  the  text  stand,  for  he  transfers  the  narrative  bodily 
from  the  reign  of  Dar.  to  that  of  Cy.,  so  that  the  passage  becomes  the 


104  EZRiV-NEHEMIAH 

sequel  to  c.  i  and  the  hero  is  Shes.,  though  Zer.  is  named  in  5*.  This 
event  is  placed  in  the  2d  year  of  Cy.,  and  so  in  3'  we  are  deahng  with 
the  7  th  month  of  that  year. 

There  are  two  difficulties  in  accepting  this  date.  In  our  text,  esp. 
in  the  better  version  of  Esd.,  there  is  a  statement  that  Shes.  and  a  com- 
pany went  from  Bab.  to  Jerus.,  taking  the  temple  vessels  with  them. 
This  whole  passage  would  be  a  mere  amplification  of  that  statement. 
A  more  serious  difficulty  is  found  in  the  fact,  as  shown  in  intr.,  that 
c.  3  does  belong  to  the  time  of  Dar.  I  believe,  therefore,  that  Torrey's 
main  premise  is  correct  and  that  we  have  here  a  genuine  section  of  the 
OT.;  but  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  c.  i,  though  it  is  a  necessary  intr. 
to  c.  3.  In  some  way  Zer.,  who  is  here  given  Davidic  lineage,  had  won 
the  favour  of  Dar.,  and  so  received  authority  to  carry  out  the  decree  of 
Cy.,  which  according  to  Esd.  4"  he  had  already  vowed  to  do.  The 
date  given  is  exactly  what  we  need,  agreeing  with  4^^ 

A  suitable  intr.  of  so  conspicuous  a  figure  as  Zer.  is  too  valuable  to 
ignore.  Therefore  it  seems  wise  to  give  a  part  of  the  Esd.  story,  fol- 
lowing in  a  measure  Torrey's  translation  (ES."^  '•) 

C.  4.  (47)  Then  King  Dar.(i)  arose  and  wroteC^)  letters  for  him  to  all 
the  satraps  and  governors  and  captains  and  deputies  to  the  efifect  that 
they  should  help  along  him  and  all  with  him  who  were  going  up  to  build 
Jerus.  (')  (48)  And  Dar.(^)  wrote  letters  to  all  the  governors  in  the 
province  Beyond  the  River  and  to  those  in  Lebanon  to  bring  cedar 
timbers  from  Lebanon  to  Jerus.  so  that  they  might  build  the  city  with 
them. (5)  (49)  And  he  wrote  concerning  freedom  for  all  Jews  who 
went  up  from  his  kingdom  to  Judah,  that  no  ruler,  deputy,  governor, 
or  satrap  should  enter  their  doors,  (50)  and  that  all  the  country  which 
they  possessed  should  be  free  from  tribute;  and  that  the  EdomitesW 
should  give  up  the  villages  which  they  had  wrested  from  the  Judeans. 
(51)  And  for  the  building  of  the  temple  twenty  talents  of  silverO  should 
be  paid  annually  until  it  was  built;  (52)  and  for  offering  daily  upon  the 
altar  whole  burnt  sacrifices,  as  they  had  commandment  to  offer  them, 
other  ten  talents  annually.  (53)  And  freedom  should  be  given  to  all 
who  had  come  from  Bab.  to  build  the  city  and  to  their  children  and  to 
all  the  pr.  .  .  .  (57)  And  Dar.(*)  sent  away  all  the  vessels  which  Cy.  had 
brought  out  from  Bab.;  and  everything  which  Cy.  had  said  should  be 
done,  he  commanded  to  be  done,  and  to  be  sent  to  Jerus.  (58)  And 
when  the  youth  came  out  [from  the  royal  presence]  he  Ufted  his  face 

to  heaven  in  the  direction  of  Jerus.  and  praised  the  king  of  heaven 

(61)  And  Zer.  took  the  letters  and('>  went  out  and  came  to  Bab.  and 
told  everything  to  his  brethren.  (62)  And  they  praised  the  God  of 
their  fathers,  because  he  had  given  them  release  and  relief  (63)  to  go 
up  and  build  Jerus.  and  the  temple  that  is  called  by  his  name.  And 
for  some  days  they  kept  a  feast  with  musical  instruments,  drums, 
and  cymbals,  and  all  their  brethren  dancedC")  and  rejoiced.     C.  5.  (i) 


EZRA   2^0-43  105 

Afterward  heads  of  the  fathers  by  tribes  were  chosen  to  go  up,  with 
their  wives  and  sons  and  daughters  and  their  men-servants  and  maid- 
servants and  their  cattle.  (2)  And  Dar.  sent  with  them  a  thousandC") 
horsemen  to  bring  them  safely  to  Jerus.  (3)  And  they  made('=)  .  .  . 
for  them  to  go  up  with  them.  (4)  And  these  are  the  names  of  the 
men  who  went  up  ace.  to  their  families  by  tribes  by  their  divisions; 
(5)  the  pr.,  the  sons  of  Phineas  the  sons  of  Aaron,  Jes.  the  son  of 
Josedek  the  son  of  Saraios.  Then  aroseC")  Zer.  the  son  of  Shealtiel  of 
the  house  of  David,  of  the  family  of  Phares,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  (6) 
who  spoke  wise  words  to  Dar.  the  king  of  Pers.  in  the  2d  year  of  his 
reign,  in  the  month  Nisan  the  ist  month. 

Notes.  I.  Torrey  substitutes  Cy.  for  Dar.  to  agree  with  his  theory 
of  the  chronology;  but  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  text  seems  to  me 
convincing. 

2.  "Arose  and  wrote"  is  a  good  evidence  of  a  Heb.  or  Aram,  origi- 
nal. It  is  true  that  a  Jew  might  use  the  Hebraism,  even  if  composing 
inGk. 

3.  The  document  bears  evidence  of  a  composite  character,  as  we 
find  references  here  to  building  the  city  as  well  as  the  temple.  The 
temple  rather  than  the  city  is  meant  in  v.  *^,  as  that  was  the  purpose  of 
the  cedar  timbers  (c/.  3'). 

4.  The  name  is  found  in  ^  here  and  in  v.  ",  and  is  correct. 

5.  After  3  Esd.  cum  eis.  The  antecedent  is  cedar  timbers.  The 
whole  construction  is  improved  by  this  slight  correction. 

6.  ^  has  Chaldeans,  but  all  other  texts  Edomites.  This  is  the 
earliest  mention  of  the  Edomite  aggression  upon  Judah,  and  may  be 
the  occasion  of  some  of  the  many  fierce  prophecies  against  this  people. 

7.  "Of  silver"  is  found  only  in  ^,  but  it  is  prob.  right;  at  all  events 
silver  is  more  prob.  than  gold. 

8.  See  note  5. 

9.  The  name  is  found  only  in  ^,  but  is  right. 

10.  The  text  is  sadly  confused,  and  I  have  attempted  to  restore 
order  out  of  chaos  by  transposing  a  clause  from  5^  f-.  Torrey  tries  to 
straighten  the  matter  out  by  a  smaller  transposition  and  rendering: 
"and  all  their  brethren,  playing  upon  musical  instruments,  drums,  and 
cymbals,  sent  them  on  their  way  as  they  went  up,"  that  is,  the  Jews 
who  remained  played  music  as  the  caravan  proceeded  on  its  way.  This 
rendering  seems  to  me  to  require  some  straining  of  the  text. 

11.  This  number  is  doubtless  an  exaggeration,  though  some  escort 
would  be  prob.  Neh.  had  such  a  guard  (2'),  and  Ezra  implies  that  his 
dispensing  with  an  escort  was  unusual  (8--). 

12.  I  do  not  understand  this  passage.  It  seems  clear  that  some- 
thing is  omitted  from  the  text,  as  I  think  it  is  a  direct  sequel  to  the 
provision  of  the  guard. 


Io6  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

13.  Seeing  Dp>i  in  the  meaningless  name  Iwaxstyi  seems  to  me  one 
of  Torrey's  most  brilliant  suggestions. 

Vv.  *•*  presents  a  serious  puzzle.  The  passage  begins  with  an  intr. 
to  a  list  of  names  such  as  begins  in  v. ',  but  the  only  names  which  occur 
here  are  those  of  the  leaders  Jes.  and  Zer.  The  passage  as  a  whole  is 
senseless  as  it  stands,  note  esp.  v.  ^a  after  v.  ■•.  If  we  place  Torrey's 
discovered  npii  before  Jes.  we  have  an  amphfied  parall.  Ezr.  3=.  It 
certainly  improves  the  text  greatly  to  substitute  this  clause  for  the 
briefer  statement  in  Ezr.  32a,  then  v.  ■•■  ^a  serves  as  a  heading  for  the 
genealogical  list  which  follows.  The  added  information  about  Zer. 
fits  into  the  building  story  admirably.  Moreover,  the  account  of  the 
migration  in  vv. '-'  paves  the  way  for  the  statement  of  the  settlement 
in  the  province  in  Ezr.  2"',  cf.  Ezr.  32. 

The  dates  in  the  section  2 '"-45  are  somewhat  hard  to  reconcile.  In 
the  first  place,  "seventh"  month  in  3'  is  an  error  which  got  into  our 
text  from  the  excerpted  passage  from  Ne.  The  reconstructed  text  of 
32  fixes  the  ist  month  of  the  2d  year  of  Dar.  as  the  date  of  building  the 
altar,  and  so  of  the  assembly  described  in  3*.  In  the  same  year  in  the 
6th  month,  as  the  text  should  be  {cf.  on  3'-"),  the  foundation  of  the 
temple  was  laid.  We  thus  have  a  consistent  scheme,  although  the 
events  described  by  this  passage  cover  a  much  larger  period  than  the 
text  suggests.  The  date  is  recorded  for  the  beginning  but  not  for  the 
ending. 

2'°  Ne.  V  =  Esd.  5*^  The  settlement  of  the  returned 
exiles  in  Judah. — We  require  the  help  of  Esd.  to  get  good 
sense  out  of  this  verse,  which  by  the  omission  or  substitution 
of  one  or  two  words  is  sadly  confused.  The  original  was:  And 
the  priests  and  the  Levites  atid  the  singers  atid  the  porters  and 
some  of  the  people  were  living  in  Jerusalem  and  all  Israel  [were 
living]  in  their  villages.  The  passage  then  becomes  of  great 
value  in  bearing  witness  to  the  conditions  before  the  building 
of  the  temple.  The  temple  officers  naturally  clung  to  the  holy 
city,  while  all  Israel  (in  contrast  with  the  temple  officers)  sought 
a  refuge  and  a  livelihood  in  the  towns  of  the  province,  for  Jeru- 
salem was  a  desolation  and  offered  no  means  of  procuring  a 
living. 

3'-*''  =  Esd.  5^*-".  The  building  of  the  altar.— 1.  When 
the  seventh  month  was  come].  This  is  the  original  date  in  Ne., 
but  this  assembly  is  fixed  in  the  first  month.    The  year  is  the 


EZRA    2  ^"-4'  107 

second  of  Darius  (Hg.  i^^),  not  of  the  return  under  Cyrus. — 
Tlie  sons  of  Israel  were  in  cities].  These  words  have  no  place 
here.  Esd.  has  a  fitting  connection  rendering,  the  sons  of  Israel 
being  each  occupied  in  his  own  affairs,  meaning  that  when  the 
assembly  was  called  all  the  people  were  scattered  over  the 
country  working  for  their  bread.  The  words  are  probably 
accidentally  repeated  from  the  preceding  verse. — The  people]. 
Read  with  Ne.  all  the  people; — as  one  man].  This  may  mean  all 
together,  or  as  Esd.  with  one  accord,  for  a  common  purpose; — 
unto  Jerusalem].  Ne.  has  a  fuller  text,  unto  the  broad  place 
which  is  before  the  water  gate,  to  which  (^  prefixes  Jerusalem. 
Esd.  brings  the  assembly  to  the  temple:  unto  the  broad  place  of 
the  first  porch  towards  the  east.  (The  simpler  text  of  Ezr.  is 
preferable  here.)     But  the  temple  was  not  yet  built. 

At  this  point  the  deuterograph  ends,  each  narrative  now  going  its 
own  way,  Ezr.  to  the  temple-building,  and  Ne.  to  the  reading  of  the 
law. 

2.  Joshua]  (or  Jeshua)  is  named  the  high  priest,  or  the  great 
priest.  It  is  the  same  person  mentioned  in  2^,  and  he  was  a 
prominent  figure  in  the  temple-building  and  the  restoration  of 
the  cult. 

He  is  the  first  high  priest  in  the  list  going  down  to  the  time  of 
Alexander  the  Great  (Ne.  121"  ^■).  Jes.  is  named  first  here,  but  in  2* 
3S  4'  5=  Ne.  12'  and  throughout  Hg.,  Zer.  stands  first.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  that  in  Hg.  Zer.  is  evidently  the  more  important  of  the  two 
{v.  esp.  2='-23),  while  in  Zc.  he  is  only  mentioned  in  4^-"  as  the  builder 
of  the  temple.  Zer.  is  never  given  a  title  in  Zc,  while  Hg.  four  times 
calls  him  "the  governor  of  Judah."  Zc.  again  never  names  his  father, 
as  Hg.  does,  though  Zc.  calls  Jes.  the  son  of  Jehozadak.  Jes.  here 
comes  before  us  for  the  first  time  in  action.  We  know  nothing  about 
his  forebears  except  the  name  of  his  father.  He  joined  Zer.  in  a  com- 
pany returning  from  Bab.  (2^  Ne.  12'),  and  it  may  have  been  the  second 
large  company.     At  all  events,  it  was  later  than  the  return  under  Shes. 

And  his  brethren  the  priests].  Joshua  is  here  put  as  one  of  the 
priests,  while  the  contemporary  Haggai  calls  him  high  priest. 
The  Chronicler  has  not  exalted  the  priesthood  as  much  as  we 


Io8  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

should  expect  according  to  those  who  credit  that  worthy  with 
the  production  of  the  larger  part  of  these  books. — And  they 
built  the  altar].*  So  David  built  the  altar  on  the  temple  moun- 
tain long  before  the  temple  was  erected  (2  S.  24").  The  pur- 
pose for  which  the  altar  was  built  is  to  ofer  sacrifices  upon  it]. 
The  altar  could  be  built  in  a  very  short  time,  and  so  the  reUg- 
ious  exercises  could  begin  without  waiting  for  the  temple,  which 
it  would  take  long  to  build. — The  law  of  Moses]  probably  refers 
only  to  Dt.  here,  not  to  the  priest  code,  nor  to  the  complete 
Pentateuch.  Dt.  was  attributed  to  Moses,  and  it  makes  abun- 
dant provision  for  the  one  altar  and  the  sacrifices  upon  it. — 
Man  of  God]  is  a  term  applied  to  Moses,  Dt.  33^  Jos.  14"  i  Ch. 
23"  2  Ch.  301^;  to  an  angel,  Ju.  13^;  to  Samuel,  i  S.  9^;  to  Elijah, 
I  K.  17I8;  to  Elisha,  2  K.  4^;  to  David,  2  Ch.  8"  Ne.  ii"'-  ^S; 
it  is  therefore  a  prophetic  title.  In  the  NT.  it  is  applied  to 
Timothy,  the  disciple  of  Paul,  i  Tim.  6"  2  Tim.  31^. 

3.  This  V.  has  been  a  sore  puzzle  to  the  interpreters.  Sense  cannot 
be  extorted  from  the  text  as  it  stands.  ARV.  renders  "and  they  set 
the  altar  upon  its  base;  for  fear  was  upon  them  because  of  the  peoples 
of  the  countries,  and  they  offered  burnt-offerings  thereon  unto  Jeho- 
vah, even  burnt-offerings  morning  and  evening."  But  in  the  critical 
part  the  Heb.  runs, /or  in  fear  against  them  from  the  peoples  of  the  lands. 
Much  stress  is  laid  upon  the  longer  text  in  Esd.  5=°:  And  certain  men 
gathered  unto  them  out  of  the  other  nations  of  the  la>id,  ajid  they  erected 
the  altar  upon  its  own  place,  because  all  the  nations  of  the  land  were  at 
enmity  with  them,  and  oppressed  them;  and  tJiey  ojffered  sacrifices  accord- 
ing to  the  time,  and  burnt-offerings  to  the  Lord  both  morning  and  evening 
(RV.).  Various  reconstructions  of  the  text  have  been  made  on  the 
basis  of  this  evidence,  but  it  really  confuses  matters  worse  than  ever; 
for  the  hostile  peoples  here  become  the  altar-builders;  and  "the  peoples 
of  the  land"  is  unnecessarily  repeated.  Moreover,  while  the  state- 
ments are  ampHfied,  there  is  nothing  new  exc.  the  hostile  assembling 
of  the  enemy.  Torrey  tried  a  modification  and  rendered  his  emended 
text:  "And  some  of  the  peoples  of  the  land  gathered  themselves  to- 
gether against  them;  and  when  they  perceived  that  they  were  come 
with  hostile  purpose,  they  withstood  them,  and  built  the  altar  in  its 
place,"  etc.  {Comp.  ").  The  point  is,  therefore,  that  the  returned  Israel- 
ites succeeded  in  building  the  altar  in  spite  of  the  hostility  of  their 

*  Jos.  quotes  Hecataeus's  statement  that  the  altar  was  20  cubits  square  and  10  cubits  high 
(Smith, /er.  ii,»»). 


EZRA    2'»-43  109 

neighbours.  This  emendation  I  formerly  accepted  (SBOT."");  but  it 
does  not  touch  the  real  difficulties,  which  arc  two:  (i)  The  altar  was 
already  built,  v.  2;  no  one  has  attempted  to  explain  the  repetition  of  the 
altar-building;  the  words  are  slightly  different  in  Heb.,  it  is  true,  ij^dm 
for  ua-'i,  but  the  meaning  is  exactly  the  same.  (2)  There  is  great  dif- 
ficulty in  bringing  in  at  this  point  the  terror  of  the  neighbours.  In 
c.  4  these  people  come  with  a  sincere  and  friendly  proposition  to  join 
the  Jews  in  rebuilding  the  temple.  So  forcible  is  this  objection  that 
following  Ew.  various  attempts  have  been  made  to  show  that  the 
passage  means  that  these  other  peoples  were  in  fear  of  the  Jews,  or  of 
their  God.  To  say  nothing  of  the  impossibility  of  extracting  this 
mng.  from  any  text  whatever,  the  Jews  were  scarcely  in  a  position  to 
inspire  much  terror  among  the  neighbouring  peoples. 

There  is  one  text  of  Esd.  (Cod.'^)  which  curiously  has  either  been 
overlooked  or  misunderstood.  And  this  text  is  on  the  whole  the  best 
Gk.  version  we  have.  Correcting  this  text  on  the  basis  of  the  corre- 
sponding passage  of  the  same  version  in  Ezr.  and  making  other  slight 
modifications,  we  get  this  striking  result:  for  there  were  gathered  unto 
them  some  from  other  natiotis  of  the  land;  and  they  were  well  disposed 
towards  the  altar,  and  they  aided  them,  and  they  offered  sacrifices  at  the 
proper  season  and  hurnt-ojferings  to  Yahweh  morning  and  evening.  Zc.'s 
vision  (8")  was  based  on  past  history.  The  other  peoples  in  Pales- 
tine came  forward  and  helped  the  feeble  Jews  in  the  rebuilding  of  the 
altar,  and  thus  we  can  understand  their  coming  forward  at  a  later 
period  (c.  4)  to  render  similar  assistance  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  tem- 
ple. As  thus  understood  the  fatal  objections  to  our  present  text  and 
all  the  reconstructions  are  removed,  and  we  have  a  most  welcome 
light  on  the  early  relation  of  the  Jews  to  their  neighbours.  One  result 
of  the  right  understanding  of  the  passage  is  indubitable  evidence  that 
we  have  here  a  good  historical  source.  The  Chr.  has  worked  over  the 
material  until  its  sense  was  lost.  But  the  evidence  is  important  as 
showing  that  he  had  something  to  go  on  in  this  part  of  his  story.  On 
the  oft-recurring  "peoples  of  the  land,"  v.  on  4^ 

4.  And  they  kept  the  Feast  of  Booths].  "Booths"  is  better 
than  "  tabernacles  "  of  our  versions.  The  latter  term  comes  from 
(^  through  B,  tabernaculum,  which  means  tent.  The  booth  was 
made  of  branches  from  the  trees  (Lv.  23*^). 

This  feast  was  of  Canaanite  origin,  as  it  was  observed  by  the  Shech- 
emites  (Ju.  9")-  In  the  earliest  law,  the  code  of  the  covenant,  it  is  called 
the  feast  of  the  harvest,  and  it  is  to  be  kept  at  the  end  of  the  year  (Ex. 
23").  Dt.  prescribes  seven  days  for  the  festival,  but  leaves  the  date 
as  in  the  earlier  code,  making  the  important  addition  that  the  festival 


no  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

was  to  be  kept  at  Jerus.  In  P  we  find  the  date  fixed  as  the  15th  day 
of  the  7th  month,  the  time  is  lengthened  to  eight  days,  and  the  whole 
character  of  the  festival  is  changed.  The  joyful  harvest  feast  becomes 
a  solemn  assembly  for  the  offering  of  sacrifices  to  Yahweh  (Lv.  23"-" 

Nu.  2912-"). 

As  it  is  written].  Esd.  adds  in  the  law.  The  rest  of  the  verse, 
as  Esd.  shows,  consists  mostly  of  the  Chronicler's  amplification  of 
a  simple  statement  to  make  it  harmonise  with  the  feast  as  it 
was  observed  in  his  own  time.  There  is  no  ground  for  the  con- 
tention that  the  festival  was  kept  in  accordance  with  P  (Chap- 
man, DB.  iv,^*^^'').  The  original  said  no  more  than  that  sac- 
rifices were  offered  according  to  the  custom  (not  "ordinance," 
as  RV.).  Sacrifices  were  offered  at  this  feast  in  pre-exilic  days 
(i  K.  8^  i222)_ — jig  iiiQ  ^^ly  qJ  every  day  required;  literally,  the  re- 
quirement of  each  day  in  its  day].  This  is  a  gloss  to  make  this 
celebration  agree  with  Nu.  29^--*',  where  detailed  offerings  are 
prescribed  for  each  of  the  eight  days.  The  Chronicler,  how- 
ever, happily  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  text  he  worked  over 
so  carefully  had  not  stated  that  the  feast  was  observed  on  the 
15th  day,  and  there  is  nothing  to  guarantee  that  it  was  kept  in 
the  7th  month.  Kosters  regards  the  whole  verse  as  an  interpo- 
lation {Wied.'^'').  5.  And  afterwards  the  continual  burnt-oferin^. 
This  rule  is  first  found  in  P  (Ex.  29^*  ^■).  Two  yearling  lambs 
were  offered,  one  in  the  morning,  the  other  at  evening.  It 
is  the  sacrifice  called  in  v. '  the  offerings  of  the  morning  and 
evening,  and  like  that  is  due  to  the  Chronicler. — And  for  the 
new  moons]  i.  e.,  offerings  for  the  feasts  of  the  New  Moon.  This 
was  an  ancient  festival,  as  we  know  from  its  observance  by 
the  prophets  {cf.  i  S.  20^  2  K.  4-^).  On  that  day  no  business 
was  transacted  (Am.  8'^).  In  the  law  it  finds  place  only  in  P, 
where  there  are  abundant  regulations  (Ex.  402- 1^  Nu.  lo^*'  28"-^^ 
29^). — And  for  all  the  holy  seasons  of  Yahweh].  The  list  of  these 
is  given  in  Lv.  23,  Sabbath,  Passover,  Weeks,  Trumpets,  Atone- 
ment, Booths.  The  Sabbath  and  the  New  Moon  were  early 
festivals  (2  K.  4^^  Am.  8^).  To  these  are  added  "the  sacred 
seasons"  in  Is.  i"  as  the  general  name  for  feasts  other  than  New 
Moon  and  Sabbath.    The  passage,  therefore,  is  in  harmony 


EZRA   2^0-43  III 

with  pre-exilic  usage.  S'^-S.  Atid  of  every  one  that  willingly 
offered  a  free-will  offering  unto  Yahweh.  In  lif  this  passage  is 
without  antecedent  or  consequent.  As  it  stands  we  should 
have  to  translate  and  for  every  one,  etc.,  a  manifest  absurdity. 
We  get  good  sense  by  connecting  with  the  following  verse  as 
in  Esd.,  Aiid  every  one  who  made  a  vow  to  Yahweh,  from  the  new 
moon  of  the  first  month,  he  began  to  offer  sacrifices  to  God.  Vows 
had  been  made  by  the  people,  as  for  a  safe  journey  back  to 
Judah,  for  a  prosperous  year,  but  there  had  been  no  opportu- 
nity to  pay  these  vows  until  the  altar  was  set  up.  Now  it  was 
possible  to  discharge  these  obligations.  That  is,  we  have  here 
underneath  the  confusion  of  the  Chronicler  a  clear  trace  of  the 
re-establishment  of  the  religious  life  of  the  community,  though 
on  rather  simple  lines. 

The  events  described  cover  a  period  of  several  months,  from  the 
7th  month  of  one  year  to  the  early  part  of  the  year  following.  As 
v. «  stands  in  Heb.  it  is  a  restrospective  statement.  The  people  began 
the  routine  of  the  regular  offerings  on  the  ist  day  of  the  7  th  month. 
As  that  statement  requires  us  to  suppose  that  the  assembly  gathered, 
the  altar  was  rebuilt,  and  offerings  made  all  on  one  day,  it  is  manifest 
that  the  chron.  scheme  is  impracticable. 

70.  A  comparison  of  the  three  texts  is  enlightening  here: 

Ne.    And  the  pr.  and  the  Lev. 

EzR.  And  the  pr.  and  the  Lev.  and  some  of  the  people 

Esd.  And  the  pr.  and  the  Lev.  a^id  some  of  the  people 

Ne.    and  the  porters  and  the  singers  and  some  of  the 

EzR.  and  the  singers  atid  the  porters 

Esd.  were  living  in  Jerus.  and  in  the  country,  but  the 

Ne.    people  and  the  Neth.  and  all  Israel  were  living 

EzE.  and  the  Neth. 

Esd.  singers  and  the  porters  and  all  Israel  in 

Ne.    in  their  cities 

EzR.  in  their  cities,  and  all  Israel  in  their  cities 

Esd.  their  villages. 

The  Heb.  texts  are  both  impossible.  Sense  could  be  secured  by 
omitting  ayn-pi,  but  then  the  statement  would  be  pointless,  as  all  the 
people  would  abide  in  the  same  place.  If  we  turn  to  Esd.  and  per- 
ceive that  xotl  "zj^  7J^9'J-  is  a  gl.,  prob.  inserted  from  1^  Zi7\'<-\-j2  (3  Esd.  has 
region  in  both  places),  we  get  excellent  sense  and  the  very  statement 


ili  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

necessary,  as  this  v.  goes  back  to  Esd.  5'-%  and  describes  the  first  step 
after  reaching  Judah.  The  pr.  the  Lev.  and  a  few  of  the  people  set- 
tled in  Jerus.;  the  singers  and  the  porters  and  the  rest  of  Israel  turned 
to  the  more  promising  life  in  and  around  the  country  villages.  But 
it  is  not  necessary  to  depart  so  far  from  MT.  In  Ne.  v.  "  we  note  that 
nnnpa  is  not  repeated.  If  we  substitute  the  necessary  aStynia  for 
D-ijiuni  we  have  a  good  text,  and  exc.  for  the  transposition  of  singers 
and  porters  exactly  what  we  have  in  Esd. 

in.  1.  >Jii]  is  used  nowhere  else  of  the  coming  of  time;  but  as  the 
Hiph.  has  this  meaning  we  should  prob.  point  J?r_]  as  Is.  6'. — 3''iJ?a]  Ne. 
Dnnj73,  so  ^  ev  xoXeatv  au-cwv.  The  phrase  "the  sons  of  Israel  were 
in  their  villages"  is  of  peculiar  difficulty  here,  as  the  passage  is  un- 
doubtedly connected  closely  with  2'°  and  the  repetition  is  awkward. 
We  might  connect  2""  closely  with  Esd.  s'-^  and  presuppose  a  full 
break  in  a  paragraph,  or  supply  a  word,  the  sons  of  Israel  being  still  in 
their  villages,  i.  e.,  up  to  the  7th  month  the  people  had  not  come  to 
Jerus.  Esd.,  however,  offers  an  alternative;  in  that  text  (5^0  we  find  x,al 
ovTwv  Twv  ulwv  'Isp&Tjk  ly.affTou  ev  Tofi;  iSt'oc?.  So  3  Esd.,  cutnqiie  essent 
filii  Israel  tinusquisque  in  suis  rebus,  the  sons  of  Israel  each  being  occu- 
pied with  his  own  affairs,  i.  e.,  with  the  gaining  of  a  livelihood.  This 
gives  a  satisfactory  sense,  and  we  must  either  adopt  this  reading,  or 
suppose  the  clause  to  be  an  accidental  repetition  from  2'".  As  the 
subj.  of  "gathered"  is  expressed,  and  as  this  clause  really  breaks  the 
connection  of  the  7th  month  and  the  assembling  of  the  people,  the 
latter  is  preferable.  In  a  ms.  of  (6  (in  Ne.)  the  coming  of  the  7th 
month  follows  the  statement  that  the  sons  of  Israel  were  in  their  cities. 
— 2.  op''!]  is  sg.,  but  following  vb.  is  pi.  The  first  vb.  is  sg.  on  account 
of  close  connection  with  3?1C'\ — Saant]  is  a  Bab.  name  {v.  my  note  in 
Poly.  Bib.  Ezr.-Neh.^^).  Some,  indeed,  make  it  Heb.  Saa;:!-!:,  "begotten 
in  Bab."  But  it  is  now  generally  explained  as  ziru  Babili,  "seed  of 
Bab."  (Mey.  E«/.',  Sieg.  on  2=).  In  our  sources  and  in  Hg.  he  is  called 
the  son  of  Shealtiel,  but  in  i  Ch.  3",  son  of  Pedaiah  the  grandson  of 
King  Jehoiakim.  But  Pedaiah  had  several  brothers,  among  whom 
we  find  Shenazar  (=  Shes.,  v.  s.  on  i')  and  Shealtiel,  the  latter  being 
Zer.'s  uncle.  Either  the  Chr.  has  confused  the  names,  or  Zer.  was 
brought  up  by  his  uncle  and  thus  became  known  as  his  son. — Sx^nS.xi']. 
In  Hg.  ii2.  u  22  "Sa-.  (&  HaXaeiTjX  ("I  have  asked  of  God").— i'hnis] 
is  difiicult;  (6^  lacks  part  of  the  v.,  i.  e.,  the  pr.  and  Zer.  the  son  of 
Shealtiel  and  his  brethren,  but  a  copyist  has  jumped  over  the  words 
on  account  of  the  repeated  aSsXyof.  The  word  can  only  be  used  here 
in  a  general  sense  of  the  laity.  In  our  books  it  has  much  the  same  mng. 
as  Aram.  ni:a  "associates,"  men  of  the  same  class. — ."nin]  meant  in 
the  earlier  literature  the  oral  word  of  Yahweh,  esp.  by  the  mouth  of 
the  prophet;  it  is  there  almost  equiv.  to  teaching;  here  it  has  the  later 
sense  of  the  written  law. 


EZRA    2^0-43  113 

3.  Rarely  have  we  so  much  to  choose  from  in  determining  a  text, 
both  from  ancient  Vrss.  and  from  modern  conjecture.  All  agree  that 
MT.  is  impossible  and  there  agreement  ends.  The  basis  of  most  efforts 
at  restoration  is  Esd.^  (5'"),  here  rendered  into  Heb.  for  easy  com- 
parison with  MT. 

"'dj.-Sd  [-D]  an^^y  na''N3  13  mjisn  hy  narcn  irs^i  pxn  ^ai'D  Dn>Sp  ixapii 
■jnp'-'i  yj'?  [m^yi  ■Tin-''?  m^yi  ivi^a  D^'nat  ir'-'^']  iSj'm  iprniT'i  V"'**'^ 

The  underlined  and  the  bracketed  parts  represent  MT.;  it  appears 
thus  that  Esd.  contains  all  of  MT.  with  one  significant  additional 
clause  at  the  beginning.  This  is  virtually  the  text  accepted  by  Guthe, 
but  instead  of  clearing  up  the  difficulty  it  only  adds  to  the  confusion. 
Torrey  worked  on  somewhat  freer  lines,  with  this  result,  so  far  as  it  dif- 
fers from  the  above:  uon  iptnnn  on^'-'y  n2\s3  13  ij''3m  {Comp.^-).  Torrey 
is  obliged  to  translate  his  text  with  much  freedom.  Haupt  says  forcibly 
that  on  this  reconstruction  we  should  rd.  on^Sy  n3\x3  in3  '3  (SBOT.^o). 
Various  slight  modifications  have  been  proposed.  Ryle  omits  prep. 
c  before  ''s;'  and  so  gets:  "for  the  people  of  the  countries  were  a  terror 
to  them."  Van  Hoonacker  regards  nao  as  an  Aram,  word:  "they 
established  the  altar  upon  its  bases;  for  a  bamah  was  found  above, 
erected  by  the  care  of  the  peoples  of  the  land"  {Restaur.^").  In  jus- 
tification he  says:  "The  cult  had  not  been  suppressed,  but  the  altar 
where  it  had  been  celebrated  was  a  sacrilegious  altar."  Zillessen 
proposed  inxn  >a>'3  D^n'^x  rn^x  13  (ZAW.  1904,'"),  but  this  lacks  any 
textual  support. 

The  attempts  to  reconstruct  the  text  on  the  basis  of  Esd.  all  work 
on  the  easier  text  of  K  When  we  turn  to  ^  we  note  some  significant 
variations.  That  text  runs:  xal  extauvTJxBiQffav  auxolq  ex  twv  d'XXwv 
eOvwv  TTJ?  Y^O?  5^*^  xaxwpOtoOYjaav  exl  to  BuatatjriQptov  e-zl  -uoO  totcou 
auTwv  •  oTt  ev  exSp?  '^aav  auxols  /.otxtaxy^tv  otJ-coO?  xavra  xx  I'Ovy)  tx 
Ixl  T^?  Y^?  ■  '^'^^  avscpspov  Guatas;  v-x-zo:  Tbv  xatpbv  xal  oXoxauTwiiara 
xupi'(j)  -zh  "TCpwtvbv  Y.x\  rb  SstXtvov.  This  «hould  be  rendered  somewhat 
differently  from  the  prevalent  translations,  thus:  And  there  were  gathered 
to  them  some  from  all  the  other  peoples  of  the  land,  and  they  were  favorably 
disposed  towards  the  altar  [upon  its  place,  for  they  were  at  enmity  with 
them]  so  that  all  the  peoples  'which  were  in  the  country  helped  them  and 
they  offered  sacrifices  according  to  the  season,  and  burnt-offerings  to  Yahweh 
morning  and  evening.  At  the  start  auTol?  represents  nniS;?  in  the  sense 
of  an^V.x,  so  that  the  gathering  is  friendly  not  hostile  (cf.  Esd.  g^). 
From  this  text  we  cannot  extort  "they  erected  the  altar  on  its  base." 
The  vb.  xaT<i)p6wOT]aav  represents  '^y'  in  Mi.  7-  Ps.  119'-*  Pr.  2'-  '  14", 
and  followed  by  Ixt  must  be  rendered  as  above.  Xxxiaxusccv  might 
mean  overpowered,  but  followed  by  ace.  we  find  it  standing  for  iry  in 
I  Ch.  15=^  2  Ch.  i4">.  Putting  into  Heb.  the  parts  not  in  brackets  we 
have:    I'lxn  iny  S3  Dnryn  nstnn  Sx  n'i""'i  onnNn  ^nsn  injJD  oniSx  ix3pii 

.2-\yh^  -ypzh  nin-'j  niSyi  np  a''n3r  iSyi 


114  EZRA-NEHEMLAH 

To  demonstrate  in  the  osoal  way  how  this  grew  oat  of  our  presoit 
text  bjr  sli^t  changes  here  and  there  is  beyond  the  critic's  art;  but  to 
show  how  this  statement  was  reduced  to  the  confusimi  we  now  hare  is 
not  so  hard.  The  idea  that  the  altar  was  built  with  the  aid  ai  the 
pet^es  in  Palestine  was  intolerable  to  the  people  who  had  drunk  deefty 
of  the  spint  of  Ezra.  By  a  few  strokes  of  the  pen  that  friendly  aid 
has  be«i  changed  to  a  fear.  The  test  of  Esd.  has  been  conected  fran 
MT.  by  putting  in  the  new  parts,  but  where  they  make  do  sense.  ^  has 
worked  over  the  passage  and  made  it  intdligiUe  but  oitirdy  wrong. 
It  is  passible  to  put  the  substance  of  the  passage  in  still  doser  ooa- 
formity  to  MT. :  t'^i  cpti  rsrr.T-Hn  r<g"i  mrttta  »rrr  z"^^  rrzn  wa  '3. 
We  might  go  a  little  further  in  our  reccmstraction,  reading  Kt.  ^t 
(supported  by  <S^^).  Connecting  then  with  v.  ^  we  get  this  dear  sense: 
And  Jes.  .  .  .  got  ready  and  they  huUt  the  altar  t)f  the  God  cf  Israel  to 
offer  burnt-offerings  upon  it  .  .  .  for  there  were  gathered  unto  them  sowu  of 
tie  peoples  of  the  lands,  and  they  •acre  wdl  disposed  towards  tie  altar,  and 
they  helped  them,  and  he  [Jes.]  offered  upon  it,  etc  Ccmpaxii^  emended 
text  (i)  with  MT.  (2)  we  have: 

jvevih  r>ir;  r"*;  '^t'i        s-t-;  na-n  t"!  rT^~  'Z"  z~~'  ~z~  ■-•<;  •:    > 

This  reconstruction  is  as  near  to  the  origiiial  aj  practicable  to  pre- 
serve the  sense.  The  changes  are  not  very  great  after  the  clauses  are 
transposed.  The  rest  of  v.,  "offerings  morning  and  evening,"  is  a 
lato^  gL;  for  the  original  writer  would  not  have  repeated  r-h;.  More- 
OT'er,  this  passage  describes  the  first  (Bering  made  upon  the  newly 
erected  altar,  whereas  our  text  betrajrs  the  later  point  of  view  in  bring- 
ing in  the  regular  establishmoit.    The  daily  <^eiing  is  described  in  v.  *. 

4.  f-'7\.  So  we  should  rd.  frith  aU  tests  <rf  <5;  Esd.  lacks  leora 
and  rrra  ct»  -m,  ^  further  lacks  ara  sr,  having  onfy  sspsa  nSy.  Snce 
"(^erings"  lacks  a  govoning  \h.  it  may  be  that  the  whole  danse  was 
laHring  in  the  original  text.  At  aQ  e\'ents,  the  dumsy  hand  of  the  Chr. 
is  apparent  in  the  glosses. — 5.  ."""'ir}.  With  dd.  pL  as  in  v.  *. — rras^] 
a  wwd  added  in  Esd.  5".  The  Chr.  b  fond  of  combining  sabbaths, 
new  moons,  and  holy  seascHis  (i  Ch.  23"  2  Ch.  7?  8"  3i»  Xe.  io»«,  so  Ez. 
451*). — mrr]  b  lacking  in  <5^^.  It  b  better  to  om.  the  redondant 
ff'riprn,  Elsw.  we  find  ?tbt>  irpz,  Lv.  23  (4 1.)  2  Ch.  2»,  or  r>7pc  akne. 
— Tsr]  b  added  by  the  Chr.  to  bring  the  passage  up  to  date.  The 
intr.  of  this  word  has  made  the  passage  quite  ungrammatiral,  requiring 
the  addition  of  "offerings"  as  in  RV.  -\3  so  (rften  happens,  Esd.  pte- 
series  both  the  original  and  the substitutian. — noTj aTr^nci  Wn]  Esd-  5« 
xal  C'rs:  slrx/^o  si^t"'  =  ''"'-'  '>''.n"'-'Ji  a  far  better  text. — trth  Tm  dtd 

■swT  e-TT-,  a  correction  by  the  Chr.  to  agree  with  the  idea  <rf  v. » that 
an  these  things  happened  in  the  7th  month.  But  as  he  has  here  the 
lit  day  of  tbj.t  m.-'h  i::    hrtmology  b  impcwsiMe. 


EZRA    2^0-43  115 

6''-4'  is  a  pretty  complete  parallel  to  the  Aram,  storj^  of  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  temple,  c.  5,  6.  We  have  in  both  places  the  actual  building, 
the  appearance  of  the  neighbouring  peoples,  and  the  dedication.  The 
greatest  divergence  is  in  connection  with  the  foreigners,  for  in  one  case 
the  neighbours  came  with  an  offer  of  assistance,  while  in  the  other  they 
came  for  investigation.  There  is  a  striking  parallel  in  the  fact  that  in 
both  cases  the  Jews  appealed  to  the  edict  of  Cy.  (4'  5").  The  recon- 
structed text  shows  that  the  original  was  a  true  parallel.  But  the  Chr. 
made  sad  havoc  of  his  sources.  He  had  a  conviction,  which  may  have 
been  based  on  a  tradition  explaining  the  long  delay  in  the  restoration 
of  the  temple,  that  the  interference  of  the  enemy  was  effective  for  sev- 
eral years,  and  he  has  modified  the  sources  accordingly.  But  such 
effective  interference  is  unknown  both  in  the  contemporary  prophets 
Hg.  and  Zc,  and  in  the  Aram,  account,  for  5'^  is  surely  a  gl.  by  the  Chr., 
since  it  would  be  strange  for  interference  to  begin  after  the  work  had 
gone  on  for  fifteen  years,  and  according  to  5=  they  began  to  build  the 
house  of  God. 

As  the  Chr.'s  editing  is  so  conspicuous  throughout,  it  is  evident  that 
before  his  time  there  was  a  Heb.  account  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  tem- 
ple. The  Chr.  could  not  be  author  and  editor  too,  esp.  since  the  ed- 
itor changed  the  whole  significance  of  the  story.  The  recognition  of 
the  original  character  of  the  passage  disposes  of  Kost.'s  assertion  that 
w. '-"  are  unhistorical. 

e^'-lO".  The  temple  is  rebuilt.— 6".  Now  the  temple  of 
Yahweh  was  not  yet  begun].  This  begins  a  new  section,  yet 
EV*.  separate  from  preceding  only  by  a  colon.  The  awkward 
paraphrase  in  our  Vrss. — "  the  foundation  of  the  temple  of  Je- 
hovah was  not  yet  laid" — is  unnecessary.  The  words  describe 
the  condition  at  the  time  indicated  in  w.  ^-^*,  and  they  lead  us 
to  expect  another  step,  and  we  are  not  disappointed. — 7.  And 
they  paid  money  to  the  quarrymen  and  stonecutters].  (i»  reads, 
he  paid,  i.  e.,  Zerubbabel.  The  workmen  named  here  are  not 
masons  and  carpenters  as  EV^.,  but  the  two  classes  of  stone- 
workers:  those  who  did  the  wood- work  are  named  further  on. 
These  were  men  working  in  the  quarries  near  the  temple  site, 
perhaps  in  the  ruin-heaps  of  the  old  temple,  and  were  paid 
wages. — And  food  and  drink  and  oil  to  the  Sidonians  and  to  the 
Tyrians].  These  were  not  paid  in  cash,  but  in  subsistence.  Ac- 
cording to  2  Ch.  2*  Solomon  agreed  to  give  to  the  Phoenician  car- 
penters who  prepared  the  timber  for  the  first  temple  wheat,  bar- 


Il6  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ley,  wine,  and  oil;  but  in  i  K.  5-''  only  wheat  and  oil  are  named. 
The  present  builders  are  following  the  modus  operandi  of  their 
famous  predecessor,  or  this  account  is  coloured  by  the  Chroni- 
cler's version  of  the  early  event.  The  Phoenicians  were  famous 
for  dressing  timber  (i  K.  5^^). — To  bring  cedar  timbers  from  the 
Lebanon  unto  the  sea  at  lappa].  This  follows  closely  the  Chron- 
icler's story  also  (2  Ch.  2^^).  In  i  K.  5-^  the  place  where  the 
timbers  were  delivered  is  not  mentioned.  Joppa  is  on  the  coast 
north-west  of  Jerusalem  and  is  the  natural  port  of  entry.  The 
Phoenicians  were  to  bring  the  timbers  down  the  coast,  the  Jews 
naturally  being  inexpert  in  that  kind  of  service.  Hg.  probably 
refers  to  Lebanon  in  i*  (Mitchell,  in  loc).  Marti  thinks  refer- 
ence to  the  hills  of  Judah  (Dodekapr.). — According  to  the  per- 
mit of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  in  their  favor].  Happily  para- 
phrased in  B:  "as  Cyrus  .  .  .  had  directed  them."  This  would 
naturally  imply  that  the  grant  of  Cyrus  referred  to  the  securing 
of  timber  from  the  Lebanon,  and  royal  sanction  would  be  neces- 
sary, as  that  range  was  now  under  the  control  of  Persia. 

In  the  decree  of  1=-^  nothing  is  said  of  timber,  but  in  6*  this  material 
is  named,  though  only  in  connection  with  the  specifications  for  build- 
ing. Therefore  we  are  driven  to  a  freer  interpretation:  Cy.  authorised 
the  construction  of  the  temple,  and  that  warrant  carries  with  it  by 
implication  the  right  to  procure  the  materials  wherever  they  may  be 
found.  The  implication  is  that  we  are  still  in  the  reign  of  Cy.,  though 
the  words  will  permit  a  later  date.  The  phrase  may  be  a  note  by  the 
Chr.  to  support  his  theory  that  these  events  fell  in  the  reign  of  Cy.  But 
it  is  permissible  to  suppose  that  the  terms  of  Cy.'s  decree  would  hold 
in  the  time  of  Dar.  Another  possibility  is  that  the  Chr.  substituted 
Cy.  for  Dar.  for  the  latter  gave  such  a  decree  {cf.  Esd.  4^^  and  note  at 
beginning  of  this  c).  Therefore  we  need  not  be  disturbed  by  the  state- 
ment that  Cy.  had  not  authority  to  give  such  a  permit  because  Cam- 
byses  was  the  first  to  control  the  west  country  (Justi,  Gesch.  Iran.*-*). 

8-10*.  The  text  in  part  is  scarcely  intelligible;  it  runs  (8) 
And  in  the  2d  year  of  their  coming  to  the  house  of  God  at 
Jerusalem,  in  the  2d  month,  Zerubbabel  the  son  of  Shealtiel  and 
Jeshua  the  son  of  Jozadak  and  the  rest  of  their  brethren,  the  priests 
and  the  Levites,  and  all  who  had  come  from  the  captivity  to  Jerusa- 
lem began — and  they  appointed  the  Levites  from  twenty  years  old 


EZRA    2' 0-43  117 

and  upward  to  siiperintoid  the  work  of  the  house  of  Yahweh.  (9) 
And  Jeshua,  his  sons  and  his  brethren,  Kadmiel  and  his  sons  the 
sons  of  Judah,  stood  up  ivith  one  accord  to  superintend  the  work- 
men at  the  house  of  God,  the  sons  of  Hcnadad,  their  sons  and  their 
brethren  the  Levites.  (10)  And  the  builders  began  the  temple  of 
Yahweh.  In  this  text  we  notice  a  sentence  that  is  never  fin- 
ished, V.  *;  Zerubbabel  et  al.  began  something,  but  we  are  not 
told  what  they  began,  or  what  the  result  was.  We  have  two 
distinct  statements  about  superintendence,  in  one  place  of  the 
Levites,  in  the  other  of  Jeshua.  Finally  we  learn  that  the  build- 
ers began  or  laid  the  foundations  of  the  temple,  but  it  goes  no 
further.  Esd.  shows  duplication  after  MT.,  but  it  contains 
three  clear  statements:  (i)  Zerubbabel  et  al.  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  temple  in  the  2d  year  of  the  return  (or  of  Darius); 
(2)  Jeshua  and  other  Levites  served  as  superintendents  of  the 
building  (or  as  chief  workmen) ;  (3)  the  temple  of  Yahweh  was 
building  at  this  time,  not  merely  the  foundations,  but  the 
structure.  So  in  4^  the  Samaritans  heard  that  the  Jews  were 
building  a  temple.  Torrey  sees  that  Esd.  has  the  true  reading 
(Comp.^^),  but  he  does  not  apparently  recognise  its  full  sig- 
nificance. 

The  passage  may  be  reconstructed  with  the  help  of  Esd.  so 
that  it  tells  a  surprising  and  clear  story  of  the  work  on  the  tem- 
ple, advanced  to  completion,  or  certainly  beyond  anything  sug- 
gested in  MT.  The  revised  text,  which  in  its  essential  features 
is  justified  in  the  notes,  is  rendered  thus:  And  in  the  2d  year 
of  Darius,  in  the  6th  month,  Zerubbabel  the  son  of  Shealtiel 
and  Jeshua  the  son  of  Jozadak  and  their  brethren,  and  the  priests, 
the  Levites,  and  all  (others)  who  had  come  in  from  the  captivity 
to  Jerusalem  began  and  laid  the  foundation  of  the  house  of  God. 
On  the  1st  day  of  the  2d  month  of  the  2d  year  of  their  coming 
to  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  then  they  appointed  the  Levites  of  twenty 
years  and  upward  for  the  work  on  the  house  of  Yahweh;  then  arose 
Jeshua  and  Bani  and  Ahijah  and  Kadmiel,  the  sons  of  Hodaviah 
and  the  sons  of  Henadad  their  sons  and  their  brothers,  all  the  Le- 
vites doing  the  work  on  the  house  of  God,  and  the  builders  were 
erecting  the  temple  of  Yahweh. 


1 1 8  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Unto  the  house  of  God  in  v.  ^  is  a  gl.  of  the  Chr.  sliowing  his  tendency 
to  anachronism;  the  sequence  to  their  coming  is  "to  Jerus."  The  im- 
portant date,  the  2d  year  of  Dar.,  is  found  in  Esd.^  and  is  doubtless 
correct.  Virtually  all  interpreters  have  explained  this  note  of  time 
as  being  the  2d  year  of  the  return  under  Shes.,  538  B.C.  But  neither 
Zer.  nor  Jes.  was  in  that  party,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  temple  was 
not  begun  at  that  time.  We  have  here  further  the  important  fact 
indirectly  disclosed  that  there  was  a  large  migration  to  Judah  in  the 
ist  year  of  the  reign  of  Dar.,  a  fact  inferred  from  Esd.  5'-=.  The  dates 
are  given  with  the  particularity  characteristic  of  the  time,  as  in  Hg., 
first  by  the  king's  reign,  and  then  by  the  sojourn  in  Jerus.  That  two 
dates  were  in  the  original  is  suggested  by  the  separation  of  the  year 
and  month  by  several  intervening  words.  The  later  law  of  P  made 
thirty  years  (instead  of  the  twenty  years  in  text)  the  age  for  the  Lev. 
to  begin  their  holy  service  (Nu.  4^-  "•  '"•  ",  but  twenty-five  years  in 
8-<).  The  Chr.  has  both  thirty  years  (i  Ch.  23')  and  twenty  {ib.  v.  -<). 
The  passage  may  be  due  to  the  Chr.'s  efforts  to  make  history  conform 
to  law.  In  regard  to  Jes.  and  Bani,  no  reconstruction  of  the  hopeless 
confusion  inspires  much  confidence.  But  as  "their  sons  and  their 
brethren"  (v. '),  are  comprehensive,  we  may  suspect  that  in  the  bewil- 
dering mass  of  sons  and  brothers  preceding  we  have  corrupted  proper 
names. 

Erecting  is  a  contribution  from  Esd.,  but  in  spite  of  its  significance 
it  has  generally  been  ignored  by  commentators.  Yet  it  might  have 
been  inferred  from  the  fact  that  those  who  had  seen  the  old  temple 
were  disappointed  at  the  new  one,  v.  '=.  If  nothing  had  been  done 
but  laying  the  foundation,  such  a  comparison  with  the  Solomonic  tem- 
ple would  have  been  impossible.  It  is  true  that  the  celebration  (v. ») 
might  have  come  after  the  foundations  were  laid,  at  least  arguing  from 
the  modern  ceremonious  laying  of  corner-stones;  but  it  would  surely 
be  more  suitable  at  a  time  when  the  temple  was  well  under  way.  The 
"builders"  are  identified  with  the  Phoenicians  (Berth,  et  al.),  but  that 
can  scarcely  be  the  case,  for  these  were  designated  to  prepare  the  ma- 
terials in  the  mountains,  while  the  Jews  themselves,  or  the  hired  work- 
men named  in  v. ',  did  the  building.  The  term  is  comprehensive,  and 
covers  all  who  were  engaged  in  the  big  task. 

A  vexing  problem  is  the  work  of  the  Lev.  The  term  n^xSa  does  mean 
"worship"  (».  on  2"),  and  Mey.  seems  to  insist  that  it  has  that  sense 
throughout.  But  his  contention  ignores  the  use  of  the  term  in  Hg.  i", 
"they  did  the  work  on  the  house  of  Yahweh,"  where  "work"  certainly 
refers  to  the  building  operations.  If  the  meaning  "worship"  were  in- 
sisted on,  we  should  have  to  regard  a  large  part  of  this  passage  as  an 
addition  by  the  Chr.,  who  strove  hard  enough  to  make  it  fit  his  theory. 
There  is  no  good  reason  though  to  doubt  that  the  pr.  and  the  Lev.  did 
much  of  the  building.     Certain  classes  of  skilled  labourers  were  en- 


EZRA    2^''-4-'  119 

gaged  in  cutting  timber  and  stones  (v.  ')•  But  there  was  a  vast  amount 
of  labour  which  pr.  could  do  as  well  as  laymen.  In  Ne.  3,  pr.  took  a 
conspicuous  part  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  wall.  But  there  the  Chr.  has 
tried  to  obscure  the  correct  meaning  (v.  i.  3');  and  he  has  presumably- 
done  the  same  thing  here. 

6^'.  S^in].  As.  ej^a//;(,  "palace"  or  "temple,"  prob.  from  Accadian 
e-gal,  "big  house."  In  Heb.  it  means  "palace"  or,  oftener,  "temple." 
As  a  rule,  it  stands  alone  for  "temple,"  and  is  equiv.  to  nmi  n''2,  which 
(&  reads  here  olxos  xupt'ou.  Subj.  precedes  vb.  to  mark  a  circumstantial 
clause  {Har.  Syn.  %*^). — iD^]  means  "lay  a  foundation"  in  i  K  5",  but 
"repair"  or  "restore"  in  2  Ch.  24='  Is.  44=^  The  latter  is  completely 
parall.  our  passage:  "saying  to  Jerus.,  thou  shalt  be  rebuilt,  and  to  the 
temple  (reading  as  Kt.  SdtiSi)  thou  shalt  be  restored."  Laying  the 
foundation  as  EV^  is  not  the  idea  of  our  passage;  "begun"  is  the 
right  sense,  and  that  use  is  found,  e.  g.,  in  Hg.  2^^  Zc.  4'  8'.  Esd.  ren- 
ders q!»x.oS6ixTjxo,  "built." — 7.  ai3xn]  means /isewerj.  It  signifies  "stone- 
cutter" in  I  Ch.  22=,  but  that  is  a  loose  use.  We  find  as  obj.  "copper" 
Dt.  8',  "cisterns"  Dt.  6»  Ne.  9",  "sepulchre"  Is.  22>6,  "wine-fat"  Is. 
52.  In  I  K.  5"  (EV.  5>5)  -in3  2xn  =  "digging  stone  in  the  mountain"; 
so  here  the  proper  mng.  is  "quarrymen." — 0''tt'nn]  =  cutters  of  wood, 
metal,  or  stone,  generally  with  a  genitive  to  define  exactly.  In  i 
Ch.  22'=  there  is  vyi  px  itt'in,  "cutters  of  stone  and  timber,"  The 
proper  mng.  here  is  not  "carpenters,"  since  those  are  named  later,  but 
"stonecutters,"  those  who  dressed  the  quarried  stone. — iDtf]  Esd.'^  5" 
Xipot  =  nnDsy,  which  might  stand  for  -whatever  they  pleased  to  ask.  H 
cum  gaudio.  Esd.  5"  adds  after  Lebanon  to  transport  it  by  rafts,  a 
reflection  of  the  older  story,  i  K.  52^. — a>]  Esd.  Xc[i^va  and  so  to  the 
harbor  of  Joppa. — ]vtv\]  a.  X.  (S^'^  iiziyjlyprioiy,  fyd>[Lriq^  (decree),  Esd. 
Tb  xp6aTaYiAa  xh  ypatfiv,  "  the  written  order."  M  dccretum  quod  scriptiim 
erat.  This  may  represent  anoa  Dic^-j  (cf.  Dn.  lo^').  The  mng.  of  jvifi 
"permit"  is  established  by  the  Vrss.,  the  context  and  by  the  cog. 
languages. 

8-lOa,  The  textual  problem  in  this  passage  is  one  of  the  most  dif- 
ficult in  even  this  perplexing  book.  We  note  first  that  nx:S,  a  favourite 
word  of  the  Chr.,  is  lacking  in  ®^  v. « and  in  ^^^  v. »;  as  it  is  wanting  in 
Esd.^^,  it  may  safely  be  discarded  from  the  original,  nnss  v. '  is  not 
found  in  (H^^  and  also  should  be  omitted.  But  these  minor  details  do 
not  relieve  the  passage  of  its  almost  hopeless  confusion.  The  Chr. 
might  think  that  the  establishment  of  Levitical  duties  was  important 
enough  for  all  the  preliminary  notice  in  v.  ^,  but  Zer.  may  have  deemed 
the  temple-building  as  a  more  vital  matter.  Esd.  does  make  the  work 
on  the  temple  the  prominent  subj.;  and  his  suggestion  must  be  fol- 
lowed to  extract  order  out  of  this  chaos.  The  proposed  text  contains 
all  that  we  have  in  Heb.,  but  in  a  different  order  and  with  some  addi- 


1 20  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

tions  and  variations.  Any  reconstruction  must  aim  at  good  sense,  and 
make  the  passage  a  connecting  link  between  v. '  and  c.  4.  Combining 
the  two  texts  where  necessary,  the  following  is  proposed:  ■T'jS'n  nja'31 
Q•<^hn  a•'ir\^n^  aninsi  |-nxi>-p  yv^M  SjonSxr-p  Saait  iSnn  ^B'a'^  lyina  lyv-n'? 
r\''yyn  nrrV  ■'jari  trinS  ins  uv2  DTiSsn  rr'a-ns  nD''i  a'^i'niS  ijarro  DiNan-Sai 
-ni3  njxSn-'^y  n'^yni  ny.;'  on-^i'y  pa  a^iSn-nx  nicyi  aSa'n-'Si  min>'7  dnuS 
DiiSn-So  on^nxi  Dn^ja  Tijn  ij2i  nnin  ••ja  Snidipi  ninsi  'jai  yiiJ'i  ncri  '^i'"'' 
.ni,T>  '?3in-nN  D''J3n  ijaM  D''n'?Nn  n''22  PDNScn  icy 

'Enl  Aapefou  is  from  Esd."-  5^^  This  year  agrees  with  Hg.  i'. — 'trcn] 
both  MT.  and  (B  in  all  texts  rd.  'J!!"."!.  I  have  ventured  to  substitute 
"sixth"  from  Hg.  i'.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  original  author  of 
this  piece  took  his  whole  date  from  Hg.,  where  we  have:  "in  the  2d 
year  of  Dar.  the  king,  in  the  6th  month,  on  the  ist  day  of  the  month." 
— i'?nn]  a  peculiar  and  impossible  use  of  this  vb.  in  MT.,  for  it  requires 
another  dependent  upon  it.  Esd.  supplies  the  necessary  sequence.  A 
somewhat  similar  use  is  found  in  2  Ch.  20^^  and  Dt.  2^*:  "begin,  pos- 
sess." So  here  they  began  and  laid  the  foundation,  i.  e.,  laid  the  foun- 
dation as  the  first  step. — Esd.'*^  5^*"  has  a  longer  list  of  Levitical  work- 
men, adding  to  those  in  Heb.  ot  u\o\  Ttjitou  'HtJ.a.'Ba^ouv,  unless  this 
stands  for  mjn  ija,  which  I  suspect  to  be  the  case.  There  is  also  EtXt- 
aSouv  (=  pT''^N,  "El  judges").  It  seems  quite  necessary  to  convert 
vnsi  VJ3  into  n.  p.,  for  the  final  "their  sons  and  their  brothers"  refers 
comprehensively  to  all  the  names  in  the  list. — ^32]  occurs  frequently  in 
the  Levitical  lists. — The  double  date  is  explicable  on  the  ground  that 
we  have  two  stages  of  the  work.  In  the  6th  month  of  the  2d  year  of 
Dar.  the  work  of  rebuilding  began  by  laying  the  foundations.  In  the 
6th  month,  the  work  not  progressing  fast  enough,  the  pr.  and  Lev.  were 
set  to  the  task. 

To  go  back  to  our  reconstructed  text  once  more,  it  will  be  noted 
that  the  main  difference  between  MT.  and  Esd.  is  the  clause  -nx  non 
D'nSxn  n>3.  But  MT.  has  'n-n>a  in  v. »,  where  it  does  not  belong, 
and  it  has  nD>i  v.  i»,  where  ij3M  is  required  by  the  connection  and  by 
the  Esd.  text.  I  suspect  that  the  required  word  is  concealed  in  oijan, 
where  ol  o!/.oS6yLot  of  Esd.  may  be  a  correction.  MT.  first  suffered 
from  dropping  out  a  clause  bodily,  easily  explained  on  account  of  the 
repeated  date,  then  the  text  was  further  modified  to  make  what  was 
left  as  reasonable  as  possible. 

Even  in  this  reconstruction  there  is  evidence  of  the  Chr.'s  amplifica- 
tion. Hg.  addressed  the  temple-builders  as  Zer.  Jes.  and  "all  the  peo- 
ple of  the  land,"  exactly  what 'we  have  here,  though  we  have  a  great 
deal  more.  To  reduce  it  to  the  Chr.'s  source  is  a  mere  matter  of  con- 
jecture, but  the  following  is  a  fairly  safe  hazard:  "And  in  the  2d  year 
of  Dar.  in  the  6th  month,  Zer.  the  son  of  Shealtiel  and  Jes.  the  son  of 
Jozadak,  and  all  who  had  come  to  Jerus.  from  the  captivity  began  and 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  house  of  God.     And  in  the  ist  day  of  the 


EZRA    2  ^"-43  121 

2d  month  of  their  coming  to  Jerus.  they  put  the  Lev.  from  twenty  years 
and  upward  at  the  work  of  the  house  of  God.  And  they  were  building 
the  temple  of  Yahweh." 

The  one  point  assured  is  that  in  this  passage  we  have  a  description 
of  the  laying  of  the  foundations  and  the  partial  completion  of  the  build- 
ing. Jos.  says  specifically  that  the  celebration  described  in  lob-ij 
occurred  when  "the  temple  was  finished"  {Ant.  xi,  4,  2). 

10**-13.  The  celebration. — This  passage  originally  contained 
an  account  of  the  dedication  of  the  temple. — lO**.  Not  they 
"set  the  priests"  (EV^.),  but  the  priests  stood.  Nor  is  it  right 
to  render  "in  their  apparel,"  though  supported  by  BDB,  and 
Ges.^,  meaning  in  their  vestments,  but  furnished  with  trum- 
pets. The  trumpet  or  clarion  is  the  straight  trumpet  (Br. 
P5  isxviii)  [^  distinction  from  the  crooked  ram's  horn.  It  is 
described  as  "a  long,  straight,  slender  metal  tube  with  flaring 
end"  (BDB.  Benz.  ^rcA."^,  DB.  m,*^\  where  there  is  a  cut 
from  the  arch  of  Titus).  This  was  particularly  the  instru- 
ment of  the  priest  (Ne.  10*)  and  was  used  to  call  an  assembly 
(Ne.  lo'^),  to  sound  an  alarm  (2  Ch.  13^2.  i4)^  a,nd  to  celebrate 
any  joyful  occasion  (i  Ch.  16'^). — The  Levites  the  sons  of  Asaph], 
In  2*^  the  sons  of  Asaph  are  singers.  The  reference  is  to 
that  part  of  the  order  of  Levites  whose  office  was  to  furnish 
music.  Not  all  Levites  were  sons  of  Asaph,  but  that  term 
includes  the  musical  class.  The  use  of  this  expression  proba- 
bly shows  a  different  source  from  2*^. — With  cymbals].  This  is 
parallel  with  the  preceding  clause,  a  word  being  understood, 
i.  e.,  the  Levites  furnished  with  cymbals.  Cymbals  only  in  Ch.- 
Ezr.-Ne.  and  2  S.  6^  Ps.  150^,  but  in  the  Ps.  a  different  Hebrew 
word  is  used.  According  to  i  Ch.  1$^^  cymbals  were  made  of 
brass.  The  cymbals  were  for  the  Levites  or  sons  of  Asaph  as 
distinctly  as  the  trumpet  was  for  the  priests.  They  are  often 
coupled  with  psalteries  and  harps,  and  are  used  to  accompany 
the  singers.  They  seemed  to  have  been  esteemed  for  the  loud 
noise  they  made  (i  Ch.  1519). — After  the  order  of  David  (literally, 
by  the  hands  of  David)].  This  is  a  characteristic  note  of  the 
Chronicler.  He  naturally  ascribes  the  Levitical  use  of  musical 
instruments  to  David  (2  Ch.  29"  '•). — 11.  And  they  answered  in 
their  praise].    That  is,  they  sang  responsively.    The  words  which 


122  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

follow  are  not,  however,  the  praise  song  which  was  sung,  but 
only  the  refrain  which  served  as  the  response;  therefore  we 
might  render:  they  praised  with  the  response.  It  is  difi&cult 
to  think  that  a  refrain  which  was  so  great  a  favourite  with  the 
Chronicler  was  quoted  here  in  a  mutilated  form,  therefore  we 
should  almost  certainly  read: 

Give  thanks  to  Yahweh,  for  he  is  good; 

For  his  mercy  is  for  everlasting. 

This  chorus  is  found  in  Ps.  io6^  136^  i  Ch.  16^"  2  Ch.  5"  7^ — 
Towards  Israel]  would  then  have  to  be  regarded  as  a  gloss  added 
by  one  who  did  not  see  the  poetical  quotation  and  who  deemed 
it  necessary  to  point  the  application.  In  any  case  the  connec- 
tion is  awkward.  Esd.  felt  the  difficulty  and  rendered  freely: 
for  his  goodness  and  glory  are  eternal  towards  all  Israel. — Now  all 
the  people  shouted  with  a  great  shout].  The  unusual  order,  the 
subject  preceding  the  verb,  marks  a  concomitant  circumstance. 
While  the  priests  were  blowing  the  trumpets  and  the  Levites 
were  playing  the  cymbals  and  singing,  the  mass  of  the  people 
broke  out  with  triumphant  cries. — Because  the  house  of  Yahweh 
was  begun].  Better  with  Esd.  because  the  house  of  Yahweh  was 
building.  The  Jews  were  not  wont  to  celebrate  the  beginning 
of  a  building  operation,  but  its  completion. 

Ace.  to  the  text  we  have  judged  to  be  the  most  original  {v.  s.),  the 
foundation  had  been  laid  some  time  before,  and  at  this  period  the 
building  was  well  under  way.  No  great  stress  can  be  laid  upon  the 
event,  however,  for  the  hand  of  the  Chr.  is  conspicuous,  and  he  was  a 
far  better  idealist  than  historian.  It  may  be  that  Esd.  preserves  a  note 
of  an  original  story  when  it  says,  all  the  people  blew  the  trumpets  and 
shouted.  The  whole  population  participated,  making  the  demonstra- 
tion more  democratic  than  MT.  suggests. 

12.  Many  of  the  priests  and  Levites].  Esd.  here  as  in  other 
places  omits  the  conjunction  and  thus  preserves  the  deutero- 
nomic  expression  the  priests  the  Levites.  This  is  an  important 
reading,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  sharp  distinction  be- 
tween priest  and  Levite  belongs  to  a  later  period  than  the  early 
post-exilic,  and  was  put  back  into  this  period  by  the  Chronicler. 
— The  elders]  in  our  text  is  in  explanatory  opposition  with  heads 


EZRA    2^»-4'  123 

of  clans,  but  in  (S^  it  is  separated  by  a  conjunction  and  thus 
made  a  separate  class.  That  is  an  error,  for  the  elders  are  not 
here  an  official  body,  but  the  old  people  of  all  classes. — Who 
had  seen  the  former  house],  that  is,  the  temple  of  Solomon  which 
had  been  destroyed  by  the  Babylonians  in  587. 

RV.  continues,  "when  the  foundation  of  this  house  was  laid  before 
-  their  eyes";  but  this  is  a  desperate  expedient  to  extract  sense  from  an 
unintelhgible  text.  The  Heb.  will  not  yield  that  mng.  by  any  possible 
straining.  The  words  "when  its  foundations  were  laid"  refer  not  to 
the  new  temple,  but  to  the  temple  of  Solomon!  Manifestly  no  one  liv- 
ing could  have  survived  from  Solomon's  time,  and  the  text  is  impossible. 
The  next  clause  is  no  better:  now  the  house  in  their  eyes  has  no  con- 
nection fore  or  aft.  Hg.  2=  throws  important  light  on  the  passage  both 
for  interpretation  and  date:  "Who  is  there  surviving  among  you  that 
saw  this  house  in  its  former  splendor?  And  what  do  you  see  it  now? 
Is  it  not  of  small  account  in  your  eyes?"  The  prophet  saw  that  some 
of  the  old  people  by  making  the  invidious  comparison  were  discouraging 
the  builders  (c/.  Halevy,  Rev.  Sem.  xv,=").  These  words  were  spoken 
by  Hg.  when  the  work  on  the  temple  was  well  under  way.  Kost.  holds 
that  the  Chr.  excerpted  the  passage  from  the  prophet,  changing  terms 
to  suit  himself  (Wied.^'').  Esd.  has  a  somewhat  confused  text,  but 
it  easily  yields  an  intelligible  mng. :  Some  of  the  pr.  et  al.,  having  seen 
the  former  house,  came  to  this  huilding  with  crying  and  great  weeping. 
The  idea  is  the  same:  the  wailing  was  due  to  the  comparative  insigni5- 
cance  of  the  temple  that  was  now  erecting.  But  that  rendering  pre- 
supposes a  different  text.  Possibly  the  corruption  was  due  to  the 
misconception  about  the  chronology.  It  might  serve  to  make  a  slight 
change  in  the  pointing  and  render:  the  old  people  who  had  seen  the 
former  house  in  its  place,  this  was  the  house  in  their  eyes.  "  This  "  refers 
to  the  old  temple,  and  the  mng.  would  be  that  in  their  conception 
that  building  was  the  proper  temple,  and  the  new  and  insignificant 
structure  a  cause  for  weeping  rather  than  rejoicing.  But  the  cor- 
ruption is  prob.  deeper.  In  v.  ^  our  text  yields  no  sense,  it  runs  lit., 
many  with  a  shout  with  joy  to  raise  the  voice.  RV.,  "many  shouted 
aloud  for  joy,"  is  paraphrastic  and  unmindful  of  original  text.  The  n. 
"shout"  must  be  changed  to  a  vb.,  as  RV.  in  fact  does.  In  contrast 
to  the  old  people  who  were  weeping,  many  (others)  shouted  joyfully, 
in  order  to  make  a  noise  so  as  to  drown  out  the  weeping. 

13.  But  the  people  could  not  distinguish  the  sound  of  the  joyful 
shouting  front  the  sound  of  weeping].  Of  the  people  follows  in  the 
text,  but  after  (B^  it  should  be  omitted;  otherwise  "people" 


124       •  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

would  be  used  in  this  v.  three  times  and  in  each  case  referring 
to  a  different  group.  The  passage  means  that  the  efforts  of 
the  younger  element  were  not  successful  in  smothering  the 
weeping  of  the  old  people.  Esd.  5^^  reads:  so  that  the  people 
could  not  hear  the  sowid  of  the  trumpets  on  account  of  the  weeping 
of  the  people.  That  makes  very  good  sense  and  paves  the  way 
for  the  following  clause,  therefore  (not  for)  the  multitude  trum- 
peted loudly  so  that  it  luas  heard  afar],  i.  e.,  they  redoubled  their 
efforts  to  silence  the  wallers,  so  that  the  noise  was  heard  at  a 
great  distance.  On  the  whole,  the  celebration  was  decidedly 
unique.  The  priests  blew  the  trumpets,  the  Levites  played  the 
cymbals  and  sang;  the  old  people  wept  and  the  younger  ones 
shouted  joyfully  and  trumpeted  loudly,  so  that  the  noise  of  the 
tumult  of  sounds  carried  to  a  great  distance. 

lot".  Following  <&  we  should  rd.  nnp^,  a  reading  found  in  some  Heb. 
MSB.,  as  it  is  better  to  take  pr.  d  al.  as  subj.  rather  than  obj. — 0''B'3'?d 
nnssna]  is  to  be  rendered  "equipped  with  clarions."  caS  does  mean 
put  on  clothing,  but  it  is  an  easy  transition  to  "furnish"  or  "equip." 
Esd.^^  has  iJieTd  piouatxwv  xal  aaXictyywv,  3  Esd.  kabentes  stolas  cum 
itibis. — D''n'?xca]  lacking  in  (JS^.  Esd.  has  exovxe?  Tcb  xutxPotXa.  This 
word  is  used  only  in  Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.  Another  form  is  D'''?sSs  (2  S.  6' 
Ps.  150=).  It  is  scarcely  correct  to  say  that  one  form  is  earlier  than 
the  other  (BDB.),  as  the  evidence  is  too  scanty. — n>]  Esd.  5"  reads 
s'JXoYoGvTSi;  (nnin'^)  and  connects  ^'J  with  T'n,  praising  according  to 
David  the  king  of  Israel,  unless,  indeed,  they  rd.  n'  as  a  vb.  in  Qal  with 
a  sense  assigned  only  to  the  Hiph. — 11.  ijj?m]  Esd.  eyuvrjaav,  3  Esd.  et 
cantahant  canticun  Domino. — "2x2  'a]  Esd.  5*'  otc  f;  xp-O^totyji;  auxou 
xal  T)  oo^a;  also  xav-cl  'lapa-^X  =  Sntj'i-So'^.  The  passage  is  plainly  a 
corruption  of  a  favourite  refrain  found  in  Ps.  106'  136'  i  Ch.  16"  2  Ch. 
5"  7^  i.  e.,  non  dSijjS  ^3  3Vi3-i3  nini'?  mn. — ayn-Vji].  The  subj.  precedes 
vb.  to  mark  the  circumstantial  clause. — ij?nn]  (§fi  laiQixatvov,  ^  TjXaXa^av, 
Esd.  saaXxtaav  xal  ePoTjaav,  3  Esd.  tiiha  cecinerunt  et  proclamermit. — n^-nr] 
d  (pwvTjv  or  (pwv-^'-  =  Sip. — iDin]  (gSA  espieXtwaet  =  iDin.  But  Esd.  has 
eylpsst  =  a^"'n,  3  Esd.  in  suscitalione. — 12.  ni3n  nr  nD-iD]  Sieg.  explains 
the  sf.  as  anticipatory  of  n''3n,  very  dub.  Ges.5  '-^  regards  'an  nr  as 
a  txt.  err.  for  ^^T^  non.  Van  Hoonacker  dismisses  the  clause  as  an 
Aramaism  {Zorob.^"*).  On  the  basis  of  Esd.,  Guthe  adjudges  n^2n  a 
gl.  to  which  Haupt  adds  nr  (SBOT.  in  loc).  But  oixoSoti.iQv  in  Esd. 
may  stand  for  ni3.  The  word  surely  wanting  in  Esd.  is  an-jiy^.  It  is 
prob.  that  Esd.  understood  iDi  here,  as  in  previous  cases,  as  having  the 
sense  of  nj3.    The  rest  of  the  passage  also  is  quite  different  in  Esd.,  xal 


EZRA    2™-4^  125 

"KoXkol  Sia  aaXxtyywv  /.al  X''^?*  t^sV^^TJ  '^'n  'pwv^,  3  Escl.,  c^  inidti  cum 
tubis  el  gaudio  magno.  The  obscurity  of  the  texts  is  very  great.  There 
is  a  certain  similarity  in  MT.  to  Hg.  2^  and  also  to  Esd.  We  may, 
however,  extract  possible  sense  by  disregarding  accents,  omitting  the 
sf.,  and  treating  nr  as  an  enclitic:  when  this  house  was  building  before 
their  eyes. 

Yet  that  result  is  not  entirely  satisfactory.  What  we  should  expect 
is  something  like:  "because  the  house  now  was  mean  in  their  eyes,  they 
wept  with  a  loud  voice."  It  may  be  quite  surely  said  that  Dnij>j73  in- 
dicates that  there  preceded  some  words  describing  how  the  new  build- 
ing appeared  to  those  who  compared  it  with  the  old.  No  present  text 
suggests  a  suitable  word.  By  substituting  !Oj?co  in  the  sense  of  Ps. 
10=°  for  nDO  we  get  the  required  sense  as  indicated  above,  but  the 
emendation  is  purely  conjectural.  Another  possibility  is  to  let  the  text 
stand  with  a  slight  change  of  pointing,  "'ib"'.?,  taking  the  n.  in  the  sense 
of  "base"  or  "place,"  and  referring  to  the  temple  of  Solomon.  We 
should  expect  Sj;  rather  than  3,  it  is  true,  but  some  demands  will  fail  in 
this  passage.  We  may  compare  Hg.  2=,  iicsnn  m3D3  n?n  n^in,  "this 
house  in  its  former  glory."  t\d>3  may  be  an  error  for  naaa  due  to  the 
Chr.'s  insistence  that  the  temple  was  not  advanced  beyond  the  foun- 
dations at  this  period.  Hg.  has  pxD  before  D3''j''y2.  We  should  get 
good  sense,  therefore,  by  reading  who  saw  the  former  house  in  its  glory, 
now  the  house  was  as  nothing  in  their  eyes. — o^a-i]  (^'^^  Sx^os,  other  texts, 
•rcoXXoi. — npnna]  ©'^^  Iv  aTjtxaola,  (S^  sv  dXa>^ay[XM.  Esd.  Sta  (pieTa'-) 
aaXxtYifwv.  But  a  vb.  is  required  here.  Heb.  S3aitax  has  been  freely 
manufactured  to  explain  corrupt  texts,  but  the  strain  is  too  great  here. 
We  should  rd.  O'lynn  as  in  v.  '^  Following  Esd.  many  would  rd.  nnca^Ji, 
but  that  is  due  to  a  misunderstanding.  The  mng.  is  that  in  contrast 
to  the  loud  wailing  many  others  raised  a  cry  of  joy. — Sip  onn'?].  The 
Gk.  translators  were  puzzled  by  this  expression.  In  ^^  we  find  toQ 
utj^waat  wSfiv,  "tou  u'.{^o5v  xfy  ^wvtjv^,  Esd.  (jLeyaXy)  Tfj  ipuvfj.  The  inf.  clause 
expresses  purpose,  and  is  not  to  be  treated  adverbially  as  RV.  "aloud." 
— 13.  ayn^]  is  lacking  in  (&^  and  does  not  belong  here  (so  Guthe).  Esd. 
here  offers  a  quite  different  text:  wsts  Tbv  Xotbv  [jltj  a/.o6stv  twv  aaXxtyywv 
[ttiv  q)(i)v9]v'']  Ota  ToO  xXauOpibv  tou  Xaou.  It  is  doubtful  if  this  is  any 
improvement. — ^0]  must  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  "therefore,"  and  Djjns 
thus  means  the  same  ones  that  could  not  separate  the  joyful  cries 
from  the  wailing.  Esd.  shows  a  different  text :  6  yap  oyXoc,  ^v  6  aaX- 
xll^uv  [AsyaXwi;  uoTe  [lay.poOev  dxoueaGat.  (&^^  lacks  n-i^-\r\  and  rep- 
resents Snjn  b^p2  ((ptovfj  [AeydXy]),  placing  Sip  in  a  different  connection 
from  Heb. 

4'-^  =  Esd.  5'*^■^^     The  rejection  of  the  Samaritans'  ofifer. 
-The  Samaritans  heard  of  the  building  operations,  and  they 


126  EZILA.-NEHEMIAH 

came  to  Jerusalem  with  an  offer  of  assistance  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  also  worshippers  of  Yahweh.  The  offer  was 
flatly  rejected  by  Zerubbabel  and  the  chiefs. 

This  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  vv.  •<-«  with  which  it  is  invariably 
connected.  The  two  sections  show  that  broad  difference  in  style  which 
precludes  common  authorship.  In  one  place  the  hostile  party  is  called 
"enemies  of  Judah  and  Benjamin"  (v.  ■)»  in  another,  "the  people  of 
the  land"  (v.*);  the  Jews  are  called  "sons  of  the  golah"  in  v. »,  but 
"people  of  Judah"  in  v. «,  The  prevalent  use  of  participles  in  vv.  *  f- 
betrays  a  different  hand.  In  vv.  ^-^  we  find  "building,"  but  there  is 
no  indication  that  the  building  of  the  temple  is  meant.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  c.  5  or  in  Hg.  or  Zc.  to  indicate  any  serious  stoppage  of  the  build- 
ing operations.  The  opposition  of  the  nations  is,  in  Briggs's  opinion, 
well  brought  out  in  Ps.  4. 

The  passage  is  obviously  out  of  place.  The  proposal  of  the  Sam. 
would  naturally  be  made  as  soon  as  the  temple  was  begun.  It  is 
tempting  to  transpose  this  section  to  follow  3^  The  connection  would 
then  be  all  that  can  be  desired.  Vv. » ' •  describes  the  laying  of  the  foun- 
dations and  the  start  of  the  structure.  At  this  point  the  proposal  of 
the  Sam.  would  come  in  most  appropriately.  Then  the  statement 
"and  the  builders  built  the  temple  of  Yahweh"  (v.  1°)  has  its  proper 
place,  while  vv.  ""'-"  finds  its  best  explanation  as  the  dedication  of  the 
completed  temple.  The  passage  may  have  been  transposed  to  suit  the 
Chr.'s  theory  that  the  temple  was  only  begun  at  this  time,  or  to  bring 
together  in  c.  4-6  all  the  stories  of  the  interference  of  the  foreigners. 

1.  The  enemies]  are  shown  by  their  own  statement  in  v.  ^  to 
be  the  Samaritans. — The  sons  of  the  golah]  or  the  captivity  indi- 
cates the  writer's  theory  that  the  temple  was  rebuilt  by  those 
who  had  come  back  from  Babylonia. — Were  building  the  tem- 
ple]. The  Chronicler  evidently  overlooked  those  words,  since 
he  has  doctored  the  text  of  c.  3  to  exclude  any  work  on  the 
temple  save  laying  the  foundations.  The  words  presuppose 
some  progress  on  the  structure  itself.  Esd.  contains  an  elab- 
orate statement  connecting  this  passage  more  closely  with  3": 
and  the  enemies  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  hearing, 
came  to  ascertain  what  the  sound  of  the  trumpets  [meant],  and  they 
perceived  that  those  from  the  captivity  were  building  the  temple  of 
the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel.  If  those  enemies  lived  in  Samaria, 
the  noise  made  by  the  trumpets  must  have  been  loud  indeed. 


EZRA    2^<'-4-^  127 

But  the  Samaritans  may  have  spread  during  the  exile  into  the 
bounds  of  the  later  Judean  province.  The  Hebrew  is  better,  for 
the  offer  seems  to  have  been  deliberate,  not  on  the  spur  of  the 
moment,  as  the  Esd.  text  implies. 

2.  Zerubbabel]  add  a'nd  to  Jeshua  and  the  rest  as  in  v.^,  a  read- 
ing supported  by  several  texts,  and  required  by  the  sense,  since 
the  offer  was  rejected  by  the  same  ones  to  whom  it  was  made. 
Associated  with  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua,  the  prince  and  the 
priest  in  the  government,  were  chiefs  of  clans,  making  a  sort  of 
informal  assembly. — We  will  build  with  you]  or  let  us  build  with 
you.  Possibly  these  were  the  same  people  that  had  assisted 
at  the  erection  of  the  altar  {v.  3^). — For  we  seek  your  God  as  ye 
do]  RV.  According  to  early  usage  "seek"  would  mean  to 
make  inquiries  of  God  by  prophets  or  oracles.  In  Ch.  it  is 
used  in  what  Driver  calls  a  weakened  sense  (Intr.^^),  seeking 
God  in  any  rehgious  way.  Esd.  renders  ''obey."  These  peo- 
ple acknowledge  their  foreign  characters  by  saying  ''your  God." 
— To  him  we  have  offered  sacrifices]  MT.  reads:  We  have  not  of- 
fered sacrifices.  The  purpose  of  the  corruption  is  to  show  that 
the  foreigners  had  obeyed  the  law  and  had  not  dared  to  sac- 
rifice, contrary  to  the  law  in  any  other  place  than  Jerusalem. 
That  would  add  strength  to  their  plea,  but  it*  was  hardly  the 
truth.  Since  the  time  of  Esarhaddon],  referring  to  the  story  of 
their  transportation  from  other  Assyrian  provinces  to  take  the 
place  of  the  deported  people  of  the  northern  kingdom.  They 
were  led  to  seek  Yahweh,  because  they  were  beset  by  wild  beasts, 
in  which  they  saw  a  punishment  for  their  neglect  of  the  local 
deity.  They  were  taught  the  cult  of  Yahweh  by  an  Israelitish 
priest  who  was  sent  back  from  exile  for  that  purpose  (v.  2  K. 

Esarhaddon  was  king  of  Assyria  681-668  B.C.,  and  was  the  son  of 
the  famous  Sennacherib  and  grandson  of  Sargon  who  captured  Sam. 
in  722  B.C.  The  deportation  of  these  particular  people  may  have  been 
delayed.  According  to  2  K.  17,  Shalmanezer  transported  the  colonists 
to  Sam.,  and  Jos.  has  that  name  here.  In  4'  Asnappar  is  supposed 
to  be  Assurbanipal,  and  Mey.  would  so  rd.  here.  Torrey  thinks  the 
Chr.  deliberately  put  the  wrong  name  here  to  make  the  heathen  origin 
of  the  Sam,  more  apparent  (ES."^).    We  know  almost  nothing  about 


128  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

conditions  in  Sam.  after  722,  and  must  draw  conclusions  cautiously 
(v.  further,  Smith,  OTH.-^",  Mar.  Jes.-'^,  GAS.  Jer.  ii,'")- 

3.  For  you  and  for  us].  "And  for  us"  is  wanting  in  Esd., 
and  its  omission  gives  force  to  the  contrasting  assertion,  we 
alone  will  build. — As  King  Cyrus  commanded  us\  referring  to 
the  edict  in  i^-^  (cf.  3^),  The  impetus  for  the  building  opera- 
tions is  here  derived  from  the  royal  order.  It  is  possible  to 
interpret  the  statement  as  the  groimd  of  the  Jews'  refusal  of  the 
Samaritan  offer,  King  Cyrus  ordered  us  (not  you)  to  build  this 
temple.  The  reason  commonly  urged  is  that  the  Jews  would 
have  no  dealings  with  this  mixed  race,  being  solicitous  for  a 
pure  people  and  a  pure  religion.  Such  a  consideration  would 
have  had  more  force  with  Ezra  than  with  Zerubbabel.  The 
motive  was  probably  political.  The  old  feelings  against  the 
pcQple  of  the  north  would  be  intensified  by  the  addition  of  for- 
eign elements.     (See  Rogers,  Hist.  Bab.  and  Assy,  ii,^^^) 

1.  ns]  (S  o\  bXl^avxeq,  Esd.  5"  ol  exOpot.  Esd.  adds  t^<;  (foXriq  (nan). 
— S3'n]  ^  olxov,  Esd.  vaov.  Esd.  adds  i^XOoaav  IxcYvuaat  Tfq  "f)  ipuvJ) 
Twv  aaCK-Klffdiv,  mng.  that  the  attention  to  the  temple  was  attracted 
by  the  noise  of  the  trumpets. — nSun]  d  (iicot/,{a<;  =  njnDn  as  2'.  Esd. 
ol  ex  t'qq  atxiAaXwffla?  =  os'D  also  in  2^. — 2.  '?33"\t].  We  should  add 
ywi-Sxi  in  harmony  with  v. ',  as  Esd.  and  (S^. — oain^NS]  (&^  t^  Oe^ 
f](x.b)v,  (5^  ev  Ty  Qetb  u^jlwv.  MT.  is  right  though;  S  is  found  in  this 
connection  only  in  Ch.  —  nSi]  as  Qr.  and  all  Vrss.  we  must  rd. 
^^^. — pmDN]  elsw.  only  2  K,  19"  (=  Is.  37=').  As.  ASur-a^-iddina. 
Most  of  the  Gk.  texts  make  sad  havoc  of  this  name;  thus  we  find 
Aa^axaipaO  Esd.^,  NaxopSavK  ■*■  preserves  correct  form  AaoepaSSuv. 
— 3.  iNc]  is  lacking  in  Esd.  both  here  and  in  v.  =  (it  is  best  omitted); 
C6^  has  a  curious  dup.  in  v.  =:  Zer.  and  Jes.  and  the  rest  of  the  chiefs  and 
to  the  chiefs  of  the  clans. — i:Si]  is  lacking  in  Esd.^. — in'']  CS>  sxl  -rb  au-ri. 
Esd.  [x6vot  =  n^S,  a  better  reading,  since  in^  means  together  and  would 
rather  imply  the  acceptance  of  the  offer.  But  see  BDB.,  s.  v. — ■'h'jn 
SniB''']  CS^'^  tw  6ew  TjiJLoiv,  Esd.  tw  xupt'ti)  tou  'lapai^X. 

424b_5i8       THE   ARAMAIC   ACCOUNT   OF   THE    REBUILDING   OF   THE 

TEMPLE. 

In  its  present  form  this  story  cannot  be  authentic.  We  find  in  the 
letter  to  Dar.  some  incorrect  information,  esp.  the  statement  that  Shes. 
had  begun  the  work.     But  as  shown  in  the  notes  the  text  in  that  part 


EZRA   42''b-6i8  129 

of  the  letter  is  very  corrupt.  I  have  been  able  to  restore  a  suitable 
intr.  to  the  letter  of  Dar.  {v.  5«  '•);  but  there  is  more  lacking  still.  For 
Dar.'s  orders  are  based  upon  the  decree  of  Cy.,  to  which  there  is  no 
reference  in  the  letter.  The  decree  of  Cy.  is  practically  quoted  in  the 
letter  to  Dar.,  whereas  its  place  should  be  in  his  reply.  The  decree 
in  6^-'^  has  been  amplified  by  a  later  hand,  and  a  similar  elaboration 
is  found  in  the  letter  of  Dar.,  esp.  vv. '  '■  The  story  of  the  dedication 
(vv. "-")  also  excites  suspicion  in  part. 

It  seems  plain  that  the  underlying  theory  of  this  document  is  that 
the  temple  had  been  begun  by  Shes.  and  that  the  building  had  contin- 
ued for  many  years.  There  may  have  been  some  interruption,  as 
4^*  indicates,  and  with  which  5'"  is  not  inconsistent,  esp.  if  the  ces- 
sation had  only  lasted  for  two  years,  as  is  stated  in  Esd.  5".  This  nar- 
rative is  therefore  the  basis  for  the  Chr.'s  arrangement  of  his  mate- 
rial in  c.  1-6.  He  found  this  story,  and  not  only  used  it,  but  made  it 
the  framework  for  his  whole  structure.  Whether  the  text  was  freely 
amplified  by  him  or  whether  that  had  already  been  done  by  another 
hand,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine.  He  was  not  the  only  Jew  holding 
strong  views  about  the  temple  and  priesthood. 

The  corresponding  Heb.  story  knows  nothing  of  an  appeal  to  Dar., 
and  yet  it  does  not  exclude  it;  for  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  what  the 
Sam.  did  when  their  offer  was  rejected.  This  account,  on  the  other 
hand,  contains  no  hint  of  the  tendered  aid  of  the  Sam. 

The  narrative  in  brief  is  as  follows:  Under  the  influence  of  the 
prophets  Hg.  and  Zc,  Zer.  and  Jes.  in  the  2d  year  of  Dar.  begin  the 
construction  of  the  temple.  At  once  the  Pers.  officers  Tattenai  and 
Shethar  appear  on  the  scene  (4-"'-sO-  These  officers  write  a  letter 
to  King  Dar.,  relating  their  discovery  of  the  Jews'  building  operations, 
the  claim  of  the  latter  to  authority  from  Cy.,  and  asking  for  instruc- 
tions (s'-")-  A  search  is  made  by  order  of  Dar.,  and  the  original 
decree  of  Cy.  is  discovered  (6'-^.  Dar.  thereupon  replies  to  Tattenai 
et  al.,  upholding  the  decree  of  Cy.  and  bestowing  liberal  gifts  upon 
the  Jews  (6«-i-).  The  temple  is  then  finished  in  the  6th  year  of  Dar., 
and  dedicated  with  a  festival  accompanied  by  appropriate  sacrifices 

(613-18). 

It  appears  from  the  above  outline  that  here,  as  in  4"'--*^,  we  have 
chiefly  some  correspondence  with  the  Pers.  court.  But  the  proportion 
of  narrative  is  very  much  greater  than  in  4'  ff,  as  the  letters  occupy 
but  half  of  the  passage.  There  is  a  striking  parallel  between  the  two 
documents.  In  both  cases  the  Jews  are  engaged  in  building,  the 
Pers.  officials  write  a  report  of  the  operations  to  the  Pers.  king,  and  the 
king  sends  an  answer,  though  in  one  case  the  answer  orders  the  build- 
ing stopped,  and  in  the  other  allows  it  to  go  on  with  liberal  support. 
But  in  4''-'*^  the  attitude  of  the  Pers.  officials  is  hostile,  while  in  this 
section  it  is  neutral.     In  4'  «■  the  complainants  put  their  own  construe- 


130  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

tion  upon  the  actions  of  the  Jews,  while  in  4-*  "   the  Jews  axe  invited 
to  plead  their  cause,  and  their  plea  is  forwarded  to  the  Pers.  court. 

4''*''-55  =  Esd.  5'°-6^    The  temple  is  begun. 

The  text  is  in  bad  condition,  esp.  in  the  latter  part  of  the  section;  we 
find  a  question  without  an  answer,  and  an  answer  without  a  question. 
The  letter  to  Dar.  which  follows,  however,  supplies  the  material  that 
is  lacking  here. 

24**.  And  the  cessation  was  until  the  second  year  of  the  reign 
of  Darius  the  king  of  Persia],  Esd.  s^'^  has  the  more  specific 
statement,  and  they  were  restrained  from  the  building  two  years 
until  the  reign  of  Darius.  It  is  possible  that  some  attempt  had 
been  made  to  begin  earlier,  or  it  may  be  that  these  words  are 
but  an  editorial  attempt  to  connect  c.  5  with  the  correspondence 
with  Arta.xerxes. — 1.  Here  we  may  confidently  follow  the  text 
of  Esd. :  In  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius.  This  date  ap- 
pears to  be  original,  and  it  may  be  that  it  has  been  carried  back 
from  this  place  to  /^^^. — Prophesied  Haggai  the  prophet  and 
Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo  the  prophet].  The  text  shows  a  de- 
pendence upon  Hg.  This  prophet's  father  is  never  named,  but 
he  is  called  habitually  "Haggai  the  prophet"  (Hg.  i^- ^^  2I.  10), 
According  to  Zc.  i^  Zechariah  was  the  grandson  of  Iddo,  an 
instance  of  the  untrustworthiness  of  our  genealogies. — In  the 
name  of  the  God  of  Israel  unto  them].  ARV.  inserts  "prophesied 
they,"  but  has  a  marginal  alternative,  "which  was  upon  them." 
Torrey  renders  "which  was  over  them."  So  3  Esd.,  super  eos. 
"In  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel"  certainly  is  connected  with 
"prophesy,"  either  as  it  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse, 
in  which  case  "unto  them"  is  an  error  (it  is  not  found  in  }l), 
or  else  we  must  supply  the  verb  as  ARV.  By  a  slight  change 
we  might  get  "their  God"  for  "unto  them"  {cf.  Hg.  i"  "the 
house  of  Yahweh  of  hosts  their  God"). 

2.  Zerubbabel  comes  before  Jeshua  here  as  Hg.  i*,  and  con- 
trary to  3^  where  Jeshua  precedes. — Atid  began  to  build  the  house 
of  God].  This  statement  makes  it  difficult  to  suppose  that  there 
had  preceded  any  attempt  to  rebuild  the  temple.  Torrey  says 
that  it  is  a  characteristic  redundant  use  of  the  Aramaic  word 


EZRA   424b_5i8  1 2 1 

"begin"  (ES.'*^).  In  Esd.  3""'  he  renders  the  same  Greek  word 
"proceeded."  Still  it  would  be  extremely  difficult  to  make  the 
passage  mean  "resumed  building." — Which  is  in  Jerusalem], 
Cf.  I*  4-''. — And  with  them  were  the  prophets  of  God  helping 
them].  It  is  generally  assumed  that  Haggai  and  Zechariah  are 
meant;  but  they  were  named  in  v.  ^  of  which  this  is  not  neces- 
arily  a  mere  duplication,  "Helping"  may  refer  to  material 
assistance,  and  the  prophets  are  probably  the  members  of  the 
prophetic  guilds  which  continued  in  post-exilic  times  (v.  my 
Heb.  Prop.  c.  4).  We  note  the  prophetic  tone  in  this  story  and 
the  lack  of  prominence  for  the  priests  as  in  c.  3.  The  prophets 
may  have  shared  in  the  actual  manual  labour. 

3.  At  that  time  came  unto  them].  Work  must  have  progressed 
for  some  time  before  the  Persian  officials  could  hear  of  it  and 
appear  on  the  scene.  Tattenai  or,  as  found  in  contract  tablets, 
Ustani,  v.  i.,  the  satrap  of  the  province  beyond  the  River]  (Syria) 
the  exact  title  found  in  the  contract  tablets,  except  that  there 
we  learn  that  Ustani  was  ruler  of  Babylonia  as  well  as  Syria. 
— Shethar-bozenai].  The  real  name  was  probably  Shethar,  as 
Est.  i",  and  bozenai  is  the  unknown  or  corrupted  title  of  his 
office.  Perhaps  Shethar  was  the  scribe,  like  Shimshai  (4*).  It 
is  the  custom  in  these  documents  to  give  both  the  name  and 
the  title  of  the  writers. — Thus  they  said  to  them]  i.  e.,  thus  they 
inquired  of  them. — Who  gave  you  an  order  to  build  this  house] 
implying  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  could  not  be 
permitted  without  proper  authorisation.  That  undoubtedly 
was  a  fact.  There  is  a  good  illustration  in  the  Eleph.  pap. 
The  Jewish  colony  there  had  had  a  temple,  but  it  had  been 
destroyed  by  their  enemies;  they  wished  to  rebuild  it,  and  so 
sent  a  long  letter  to  Bagohi,  governor  of  Judah,  asking  the 
necessary  permission.  This  letter  is  dated  the  17th  year  of 
Darius  Nothus  (408  B.C.),  that  is,  a  little  more  than  a  century 
later  than  our  period. — And  to  finish  this  wall]  is  almost  cer- 
tainly wrong;  but  it  is  not  so  easy  to  say  what  is  surely  right. 
The  meaning  of  the  word  translated  "wall"  is  not  known.  It 
may  be  that  "foundation"  is  right  {v.  i.).  The  word  is  found 
in  Eleph.  Pap.  i,",  but  the  meaning  is  doubtful  save  that  it 


132  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

refers  to  some  part  of  the  temple,  and  to  something  made  of 
wood,  as  it  was  burnt.  Sachau  proposes  here  "establishment" 
{Pap.  u.  Ost.''). 

In.  vv.  I-'  the  text  of  Esd.  is  usually  close  to  MT.  But  in  w.  **• 
the  departure  becomes  very  considerable.  The  peculiar  rendering 
throws  little  light  on  the  text,  which  here  has  suffered  severely  appar- 
ently by  the  compiler's  omissions. 

4.  Then  we  said  to  them  as  follows].  But  what  they  said  is  lack- 
ing. In  Esd.  the  difficulty  is  relieved,  for  this  phrase  is  wanting. 
In  (S  we  find  a  slight  change,  then  they  [the  Persians]  said  these 
things  to  them  [the  Jews],  i.  e.,  inquired  further.  But  that  gives 
us  two  questions  suitably  introduced,  while  there  is  no  answer 
to  either  one.  ARV.  cuts  the  knot  by  turning  the  second  ques- 
tion into  the  missing  answer  to  the  first,  though  unhappily  the 
reply  has  no  relation  whatever  to  the  question.  RV.  and  AV. 
more  wisely  render  the  text  as  it  stands,  though  it  does  not 
make  sense.  But  not  to  know  is  sometimes  better  than  to 
know  wrongly.  In  the  letter  which  Tattenai  sent  to  Darius  we 
find  the  missing  answer  of  the  Jews  (\^.  ""^*),  and  it  is  a  good 
answer,  for  here  is  related  the  history  of  the  attempts  at  temple- 
building,  which  it  is  declared  had  been  authorised  by  Cyrus. 
It  may  be  that  on  accoimt  of  the  length  of  the  reply,  and  to 
avoid  repetition,  the  Chronicler  left  out  the  long  answer  here. 
— What  are  the  names  of  the  men  who  are  building  this  building]. 
The  answer  would  naturally  be  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua.  The 
only  name  found  in  the  letter,  however,  is  Sheshbazzar,  w.  "•  ^®- 
— 5.  And  the  eye  of  their  God  was  upon  the  elders  of  the  Jews]. 
Elders  is  used  for  the  leaders,  the  men  called  so  often  "heads 
of  the  fathers"  (cf.  i^).  In  (11  we  find  captivity  of  Judah,  also 
found  in  Esd.,  and  giving  a  more  suitable  sense,  for  the  divine 
favour  was  not  limited  to  the  leaders,  but  was  extended  to  the 
whole  people.  If  "elders"  is  right  the  meaning  is  that  the 
reply  to  Tattenai  had  been  so  happily  framed  that  he  had  no 
excuse  for  present  interference.  Esd.  has  a  different  text,  and 
they  had  favour,  there  being  an  overseeing  of  the  captivity  from 
the  Lord,  the  elders  of  the  Judeans. — And  they  did  not  restrain 


EZRA    42^b-6i8  j^^ 

them]  i.  e.,  from  continuing  the  building. — Until  a  report  should 
go  to  Darius,  and  then  they  would  return  an  answer  concerning 
this].  We  have  clear  evidence  of  confusion.  The  last  part  is 
plainly  an  indirect  reproduction  of  the  verdict  of  the  Persian 
officials.  We  must  assume  something  like  this:  then  they  [the 
Persians]  said  to  them  [the  Jews]*  that  they  would  not  restrain  them 
until  a  report  should  go  to  Darius,  and  then  they  would  give  them 
a  reply  about  this.  This  would  be  a  reply  to  the  assertion  of 
the  Jews  that  they  were  building  the  temple  under  the  express 
sanction  of  Cyrus,  a  sanction  assumed  by  all  parties  to  hold 
good.  The  real  question,  therefore,  referred  to  Darius  was 
whether  there  was  any  authorisation  by  Cyrus.  The  Jews 
evidently  had  not  at  hand  a  copy  of  the  important  document. 

1.  £v  M  Tw  SeuTEpw  exet  iriq  Aapeiou  PafftXsiocs  is  the  reading  of 
Esd.,  and  is  correct,  for  v.  '*  is  taken  almost  bodily  from  Hg.  i'  "in 
the  2d  year  of  Dar.  [prophesied]  Hg.  the  prophet,"  etc.  The  date,  the 
silence  in  regard  to  Hg.'s  father,  and  the  repetition  of  the  prophetic 
title  are  siure  marks  of  the  source.  The  clause  is  much  like  4=^. — h^ni^j] 
(&  xpocpTt]Te;av,  but  Esd.  •xpo^^xat  (so  (&  in  v.-);  rd.  no;  in  both  cases. 
— hSn]  4-  xupt'ou  (&^  Esd. — pniSy]  05  Esd.  Ix'  au-uouc;.  In  spite  of  this 
support  the  word  has  no  connection.  It  may  have  been  originally  their 
God. — 2.  riw'j  is  explained  as  Pa.  from  xi'-r,  used  often  with  mng. 
"loosen."  (&  Esd.  render  rjpqavTo. — nj?D]  only  here  in  B.  Aram.,  but  it 
is  a  good  Heb.  word  mng.  "support."  Aid  by  taking  part  in  the  work 
is  the  sense  here. — 3.  Njn?-n3]  05  £v  au-rJ)  tw  xatpw  (xp6v<p  Esd.);  lit., 
in  it,  the  time,  i.  e.,  at  that  time.  On  the  construction  v.  Kautzsch,  §". 
pr  is  by  some  derived  from  old  Pers.  zrvan  (Str.),  but  Zimmern  traces 
it  to  As.,  simanu  {KAT.^'^).  The  word  occurs  in  late  Heb.  (Eccl.  3' 
Est.  9".  ji). — nnx]  V.  Kautzsch,  §  ■'^— •'jnp]  C5  ©avavai'^,  0a60avai^,  Tav- 
Gavatoi;^,  Esd.  StcrtvvTQs,  so  Jos.  Andreas  says,  "surely  a  Pers.  name 
which  has  not  been  correctly  transmitted."  Mey.  sees  the  correct  form 
in  Esd.,  and  connects  it  with  Thishinaja  (Enl.^^).  Meissner  finds  in 
contract  tablets  of  the  ist  and  3d  years  of  Dar.,  Us-ta-an-ni  pihat 
Babili  u  ebir  nari,  "UStani  the  satrap  of  Bab.  and  beyond  the  River," 
the  very  title  and  place  of  our  text.  He  holds  that  we  have  here  the 
same  person  and  should  correct  our  text  and  rd.  "'jnc'i  (ZAW.  1897,'"  '•, 
so  KAT.'-  ^")-  This  is  a  very  prob.  identification.  There  is  no  suffi- 
cient reason  for  making  this  officer  a  Pers.;  he  may  just  as  well  have 

*This  may  be  what  was  originally  in  the  puzzling   clause  in  4»,  llien  we  said  to  them  as 
Sallows,  a  clause  accidentally  transposed,  and  then  changed  in  form. 


134  EZRA-NEHEMI  AH 

been  a  Bab.,  Aramean,  or  Sam. — nns]  Q5  exapxo?^'^  and  Esd.  aTpaxTjY^?^- 
— "'jtu  nnr]  (S  Iilaeappoul^ava^^,  ©ap^out^avatos^  (first  syl.  lacking),  SaO- 
pa^ou^avTjq  Esd.  Mey.  accepts  last  form;  huzanes,  he  says,  is  Pers. 
barzanes,  and  shclhar  might  be  Pers.  c/ira,  but  as  a  di\ane  name  is  re- 
quired, he  corrects  the  text  to  ijriaiPD  =  MtOpaPou'CotviQt;.  In  this  he 
follows  Andreas,  who  gives  Iranian  form  Mithrahaiizana,  "Mithra  is  the 
rescuer."  Scheftelowitz  connects  with  old  Iran.  Sethrabuzana.  Winckler 
finds  the  word  an  oflScial  title  {MVAG.  1897, =^1  f).  There  is  a  Pers. 
officer  named  ^^^r\z'  in  Esd.  i'^,  and  as  the  text  offers  two  words  the 
conjecture  is  good  that  inc  was  the  name  and  "'jna  the  title  of  his 
office.  Mey.  thinks  he  was  subordinate  to  Ustani;  he  was  a  royal 
secretary  like  Shimshai  (4^). — xnt'N]  v.  ^  CS  xopifjYiav;  oTlYiQvEsd.  It  is 
a  word  of  obscure  origin  and  mng.;  various  Pers.  and  As.  derivations 
have  been  proposed  {v.  Ges.^,  BDB.).  The  various  meanings  proposed 
are  "wall"  (Mar.  from  As.),  "sanctuary"  (Haupt,  As.  asm),  "palace" 
(Marquart,  Pers.),  "breach"  (Scheftelowitz,  Pers.).  It  seems  pretty 
clear  that  it  is  the  same  word  (one  or  the  other  being  a  corrupt  form) 
as  N't^N  412  516  6',  the  similarity  of  vocalisation  being  pointed  out  long 
ago  by  Kautzsch,  §  ^•'.  In  all  cases  the  reference  is  to  an  initial  stage  in 
rebuilding  either  walls  or  edifice,  something  finished  before  the  rest  is 
begun.  In  v. "«  Shes.  put  in  the  foundation  as  the  first  step  (similarly 
6').  In  all  these  cases  "foundation"  makes  the  best  sense,  and  may 
be  provisionally  adopted.  Contrary  to  Berth,  "sanctuary"  does  not 
seem  to  me  to  make  good  sense.  It  is  admitted  that  the  query,  "who 
issued  a  decree  to  you  to  build  this  house  and  to  finish  this  foundation?" 
reverses  the  natural  order.  At  present  there  is  no  satisfactory  solution. 
I  suspect  that  the  clause  was  added  here  by  an  editor  to  force  a  sort 
of  agreement  with  4'=. — 4.  nj-ion]  (^  eVxocav'^,  elitov^K  Evidently  the 
incomplete  and  disordered  text  was  before  the  translators,  and  they, 
like  EV^.  made  the  best  out  of  it  they  could.  Esd.  lacks  v.  "  and  thus 
connects  the  two  questions  as  they  may  well  be. — sj-jn]  (S  icoXtv,  Esd. 
TaiJTa. — 5.  pj"]  (&  SipOaXfjiof,  Esd.  xitgt.-^  =  Heb.  tn  and  prob.  right  text, 
corrupted  here  by  similarity  of  sound,  jn  does  not  occur  in  B.  Aram., 
but  the  vb.  jjn  is  found,  p;'  also  appears  in  Esd.  as  liLtaxoxTj?. — ann^N] 
Hebraism,  Mar.  corrects  to  pnnSN;  apparently  in  Esd.  as  'i's^otsm;  Heb. 
dh^Sn  "unto  them." — •'atr]  (^  aixi^iXcoatv.  <i  rd.  the  Heb.  word  Of. 
It  is  Pe.  ptc.  used  as  subst.  (v. '  6'-  »■  '^  f),  "elders"  (Mar.  §  ^sb).  Esd. 
has  a  dup.  adding  xpeapuxepot. — ndjjb]  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of 
"report,"  which  Tattenai  will  send  to  Dar. — in^]  on  the  form  see 
Mar.  §  82  ".  (&  has  prob.  a  free  rendering,  dtx£ve%6Tj,  Esd.  dxoaTj[jLav0iivat. 
— N:in!rj]  (§fi^  persist  in  the  rendering  (popoXoyco,  StdtTaypia''.  "Letter" 
is  certainly  unsuitable  here;  it  is  something  which  Tattenai  el  al.  will 
bring  back  to  the  Jews  after  they  hear  from  Dar.,  therefore  "decision" 
or  "order,"  as  <S>^,  really  "answer."  "U  has  a  different  text,  bid  the  eye 
of  their  God  was  made  over  the  elders  of  the  Jews,  and  they  ivere  not  able  to 


EZRA     424b-6l8  135 

restrain  them.  And  it  sufficed  that  the  mailer  should  be  referred  to  Dar., 
and  they  would  give  adequate  proof  against  that  accusation,  i.  e.,  that  they 
were  building  without  authority. 

6-17  =  Esd.  6'-".     The  report  to  Darius— Vv. «•  ^^  (to 

Darius)  is  introductory  by  R. — 6.  A  copy]  or  perhaps  trans- 
lation, V.  on  4".  The  letter  purports  to  be  quoted  exactly. 
His  companions,  because  Tattenai  is  chief  (v.  Mey.^^)^  The 
Apharsachiies,  v.  4^.  Torrey  explains  the  word  as  equivalent 
to  eparchs,  Esd.  similarly  has  "leaders"  or  "rulers." — 7.  They 
sent  a  report  to  him  and  therein  was  written  like  this]  is  redundant, 
and  lacking  in  Esd.  together  with  the  preceding  unto  Darius  the 
king. — To  Darius  the  king,  all  peace] ;  the  beginning  of  the  letter. 
There  is  a  textual  error;  for  reconstruction  v.  i. — 8.  To  Judah 
the  province].  Esd.  adds,  and  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem;  we  dis- 
covered in  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  "Province"  refers  to  one  of 
the  districts  of  the  Syrian  satrapy,  as  in  2^. — To  the  house  oj 
the  great  God].  A  strange  statement  for  the  Persian  officials. 
Berth,  compares  Cyrus's  calling  Marduk  "the  great  lord,"  but 
Cyrus  thought  he  had  conquered  Babylon  by  Marduk's  aid. 
— And  it  is  building  of  great  stones].  The  text  is  literally,  stone 
of  rolling,  i.  e.,  "too  big  to  carry";  but  on  basis  of  (^  we  should 
probably  substitute  hewn  or  splendid  (costly)  (7;.  i.).  Esd.  has 
a  suggestive  variant:  the  elders  oJ  the  Jews  that  are  of  the  cap- 
tivity are  building  a  great  new  house  for  the  Lord  of  hewn  and  splen- 
did stones. — And  timbers  are  being  set  in  the  walls].  So  the  pas- 
sage is  understood  by  Meyer  {Ent.'^^)  et  al.,  but  Sieg.  insists  that 
it  means  wainscotting  placed  on  the  walls  as  described  in  i  K. 
6^^  Berth,  thinks  that  "wainscotting"  would  suggest  a  prog- 
ress in  building  too  advanced  for  this  stage.  The  Aramaic 
word  means  tree  or  wood  and  might  be  used  of  "beams"  or 
"boards."  The  older  view  "timbers"  is  preferable,  for  the 
wainscotting  would  scarcely  be  worth  reporting  to  the  king. 
The  report  aims  to  show  that  considerable  progress  has  already 
been  made,  and  that  the  work  is  pushed  forward  rapidly. — 
And  it  prospers  in  their  hands]  is  redundant,  and  may  be  the 
Chronicler's  amplification.  Esd.  has  an  addition,  and  it  is  being 
completed  with  all  glory  and  diligence. — Then  we  asked  these  elders, 


136  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

thus  we  said  to  them]  is  surely  not  original.  The  second  clause 
was  apparently  added  from  v.^;  it  is  quite  superfluous  here. 
In  its  place  Esd.  has  simply  saying.  The  question  is  word  for 
word  that  of  v. ^.  "These  elders"  has  no  antecedent  in  Ara- 
maic text,  but  Esd.  supplies  it  in  v.  *. 

10.  The  second  question  is  repeated  indirectly:  and  also  we 
asked  of  them  their  names].  Esd.  amplifies:  "we  asked  them  for 
the  register  (ovofiaToypa^iav)  of  the  principal  men." — To  in- 
form thee  and  to  write  for  thee  the  names  of  the  men  who  are  their 
chiefs],  so  we  must  read  as  (H  and  Esd.,  changing  the  finite  verb 
to  the  infinitive.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  letter  contains  in 
great  detail  the  Jews'  answer  to  the  first  question,  but  there 
is  no  mention  of  the  names  which  are  said  to  have  been  writ- 
ten. Evidently  we  have  not  the  whole  of  the  letter,  but  only 
that  part  which  is  material  from  the  Jewish  point  of  view. — 
11.  And  in  this  manner  they  answered  iis].  The  answer  of  the 
Jews  is  recited  at  great  length,  continuing  through  v.  1^;  it  is 
apologetic  in  tone  and  is  such  a  review  of  the  history  as  the 
Jews  were  fond  of  making,  containing  a  good  deal  of  moral- 
ising; it  might  be  the  actual  words  spoken  to  Tattenai,  but 
much  of  it  would  be  quite  immaterial  to  Darius,  and  would 
scarcely  find  a  place  in  this  letter  unless  the  writers  were  kindly 
disposed  toward  the  Jewish  project.  Now  it  is  generally  as- 
sumed that  Tattenai  et  al.  betrayed  a  hostile  purpose,  but  that 
spirit  can  only  be  discovered  by  reading  into  this  story  the  ideas 
of  its  parallel  4^  ^^  In  the  whole  story  there  is  not  the  slightest 
note  of  hostility,  but  on  the  contrary  the  zeal  with  which  Da- 
rius's  orders  were  executed  (6^^)  reveals  a  friendly  purpose. — 
God  of  heaven  and  earth]  iS  unusual.  Esd.  offers  a  more  appro- 
priate phrase,  the  Lord  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  {cf. 
Gn.  141^- 2^  where  (§  has  same  words). — The  great  king  of  Israel] 
is,  of  course,  Solomon;  for  another  reading  v.  crit.  note. — 12. 
Cf.  2  Ch.  36^^  *•.  King  of  Babylon  the  Chaldean]  is  not  very  prob- 
able. Esd.  has  king  of  Babylon,  king  of  the  Chaldeans,  the  last 
title  added  by  the  Chronicler  from  2  Ch.  36'^  =  Esd.  i^^. — 
And  this  house  he  destroyed].  Esd.  and  they  pulling  down  the 
house    burned    it.    That    agrees    with    the  earlier  history  in 


EZRA   42^^-518  j^y 

which  it  is  said  that  the  house  was  burned  with  fire  (2  K. 
25'  2  Ch.  361^  =  Esd.  i^). — 13.  Here  the  story  reaches  Ezr, 
I.  Nothing  is  said  about  the  perrnission  to  return  from  exile; 
but  that  was  unnecessary,  that  not  being  the  point  at  issue. — 
In  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  king  of  Babylon],  exactly  what  we  have 
in  i^  except  that  Babylon  takes  the  place  of  Persia.  Esd.  gives 
more  correctly  in  the  first  year  that  Cyrus  ruled  over  the  country 
of  Babylon.  The  decree  may  be  that  in  i^-*  or  that  in  6^-^  In 
the  second  there  is  nothing  about  permission  to  return  from 
Babylon,  but  had  the  decree  contained  that,  it  would  not  be 
necessary  to  quote  it  here. — 14.  In  regard  to  these  vessels 
cf.  i^  ^-  6^  2  K.  25I'  '^•. — Sheshbazzar  whom  he  had  appointed 
governor].  In  i*  Sheshbazzar  was  called  "prince  of  Judah,"  a 
title  due  to  his  Davidic  descent;  here  only  do  we  find  notice  of 
his  appointment  as  governor  by  Cyrus.  The  title  (pihat)  is  the 
same  given  to  Zerubbabel  in  Hg.  i^  It  is  the  title  of  Tattenai 
also. — 15.  In  this  verse  we  reach  serious  difficulty:  And  he 
said  to  him  these  vessels  take  up,  go,  deposit  them,  but  it  con- 
tinues in  the  temple  which  is  in  Jerusalem,  and  then  in  direct 
contradiction,  and  the  house  of  God  shall  be  built  upon  its  place. 
(§>^^  solves  apparently  by  omission  (v.  crit.  note)  but  that  is 
more  easy  than  effective;  Esd.  has  our  text,  so  the  confusion  is 
very  old. 

One  may  consult  the  comm.  without  getting  much  assistance.  Ryle, 
Sieg.  Berth,  and  Seis.  have  not  a  syl.  on  the  passage.  B.-Rys.  offers 
this  easy  explanation:  "Because  this  [the  temple]  is  still  destroyed  it 
is  added,  and  the  house  of  God  shall  be  built  at  its  place  .  .  .  the  sen- 
tence subjoined  by  1  afterward  explains  the  command  to  replace  the 
vessels  in  the  temple  in  this  way;  I  speak  of  a  temple,  that  is  to  say, 
the  house  of  God  or  the  temple  shall  be  rebuilt."  Exactness  of  state- 
ment is  surely  unnecessary  for  one  who  has  that  kind  of  an  inter- 
preter. In  the  first  place,  that  expression  "temple  which  is  in  Jerus.," 
recurring  frequently  in  our  sources,  is  a  mark  of  a  late  and  careless 
hand,  prob.  the  Chr.  Again  in  this  letter  "house"  or  "house  of  God" 
is  used  for  the  temple  at  Jerus.  8  t.,  for  in  v. "  the  Gk.  preserves  the 
true  reading,  while  "temple"  (N'73''n)  is  used  for  the  sanctuary  of  Neb- 
uchadrezzar at  Bab.  It  is  prob.,  therefore,  that  "temple"  is  a  later 
interpolation,  the  original  reading  being  "store  the  vessels  in  Jerus." 
Cy.  would  not  be  apt  to  specify  the  place  where  they  were  to  be  put. 


138  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

and  if  he  did  he  would  not  specify  a  place  that  did  not  exist.  Another 
solution  may  be  that  the  last  clause  is  a  later  addition,  esp.  as  the  decree 
authorising  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  has  already  been  cited  (v.  "). 
It  is,  indeed,  perfectly  possible  that  the  letter  ended  with  v.  "  and  that 
vv. "-"  were  appended  by  a  later  writer  who  felt  that  important  in- 
formation contained  in  i*  "•  had  been  neglected.  These  vv.  have  really 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  at  issue,  which  was  not  the  title  to  the 
temple  vessels  nor  the  disposition  of  them,  but  only  the  authority  to 
rebuild  the  temple. 

16.  Then  the  said  Sheshbazzar  came  and  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  house  of  God  which  is  in  Jerusalem,  and  from  that  time  until 
the  present  it  has  been  building  and  is  not  finished].  It  would  be 
difficult  to  get  more  misstatements  into  a  short  space.  In  a 
contemporary  record  it  is  said  positively  that  "the  hands  of 
Zerubbabel  laid  the  foundations  of  this  house"  (Zc.  4',  cf.  Ezr. 
2 8. 10)^  I'jig  only  correct  statement  in  the  passage  is  that  the 
temple  was  still  unfinished. — 17.  And  now,  to  come  to  the  heart 
of  the  matter,  if  it  seem  good  to  the  king],  a  polite  expression, 
which  curiously  Esd.  lacks  here,  but  has  it  in  2^^  (Ezr.  4'^)  in 
the  complaint  to  Artaxerxes,  where  it  is  not  found  in  MT. — 
Let  search  be  made  in  the  royal  treasures],  but  correctly  in  6^  in 
the  library,  so  Esd.  reads  here  in  the  royal  libraries.  The  library 
is  located  in  Babylon,  though  the  record  was  actually  found 
at  Ecbatana  (6-).  It  is  possible  that  these  Jews,  associating 
Cyrus  with  Babylon,  expected  the  edict  concerning  the  Baby- 
lonian exiles  to  be  filed  there.  The  object  of  the  search  is 
clearly  stated,  to  find  whether  such  a  decree  as  the  Jews  claimed 
had  ever  been  issued  by  Cyrus.  It  was  a  question  of  veracity 
merely.  The  Jews  had  made  a  statement,  and  the  task  was  to 
ascertain  whether  the  official  records  confirmed  it. — And  the 
pleasure  of  the  king  in  this  matter  let  him  send  unto  us].  This 
implies  that  the  king  might  or  might  not  ratify  the  decree  of 
Cyrus  if  it  were  foimd.  In  the  rendering  in  Esd.  this  implica- 
tion is  weakened:  and  if  it  is  found  that  the  house  of  the  Lord  in 
Jerusalem  stands  with  the  approval  of  Cyrus  the  king,  and  it 
seems  good  to  our  lord  the  king,  let  him  signify  unto  us  thereof. 
This  is  probably  the  right  idea,  for  Darius  would  be  likely  to 
honour  an  edict  of  Cyrus. 


EZRA   424''_5i8  j^g 

6f.  The  text  is  in  evident  disorder  here,  as  in  4'-".  Ace.  to  MT. 
the  letter  begins  with  trimS  (v.  ')•  But  in  that  case  the  letter  does 
not  contain  the  names  of  the  complainants,  the  names  being  only  in 
the  intr.  They  are  unnecessary  there,  since  they  have  been  given 
already  in  v. ',  but  are  required  in  the  letter  itself  as  in  the  reply  (6^). 
Esd.  has  avtiYpa^ov  i'Kis-co'kric;  i)c,  iypot^'sv  AoepstM  x«l  aiceaTetAav.  2ia(v- 
VT3<;  6  exapxo?  Supta?  x.al  tf>oiv{/.T)<;  seal  SaOpa^oupl^dvT)?  xod  o't  auv^xatpot 
o\  ev  Supfgt  xal  'i>otv(xy)  ri~fe[i.6vsc,  ScxsCkel  Aapet'w  x°"'P^''''  "tavTa  y'^'^'''^* 
x.ir.  X.  MT.  has  npuji  'jtn  inci  n-<nj">3y  nna  ijnn  nStr-^T  xmjx  p-^io 
cv-n'?  nij3  a^PD  hjid)  tiiSj?  in'^ti'  NDJna  noSd  cim-Sy  mnj  njyj  in  n^jd-ids- 
piT"  nSj  NpSa*  NjSa.  Esd.  was  plainly  taken  from  this  text,  as  shown  by 
the  underlined  words.  "Eypai^ev  has  no  corresponding  word  until  we 
reach  203.  'Hyeiiovsi;  represents  correctly  n^jdidn,  cf.  xptxac  for  N^'on  in 
precisely  similar  connection  in  4".  In  6«  =  Esd.  6-«  we  find  xoti;  aTCoxexay- 
(levot?  . .  .  T)Y£tJL6oiv.  'AxsaxetXav  represents  mSti'  not  nS'.:'.  The  transla- 
tion of  the  plus  in  Aram,  text  runs:  unto  Dar.  the  king  they  sent  an  answer 
unto  him  and  therein  was  written  as  follows:  "Unto  the  king"  and  "unto 
him"  show  a  redundancy  as  4".  The  pahath  could  hardly  send  an 
answer  (the  proper  mng.  of  sajns  here  as  in  v. ")  to  the  king.  Disre- 
garding for  the  moment  the  Vj;  made  necessary  by  a  false  connection, 
restoring  the  original  place  of  rhv,  and  correcting  a  sf.,  we  may  ren- 
der: Dar.  the  king  sent  an  answer  unto  them  and  therein  was  written  as 
follows.  Now  when  we  turn  to  6^  we  have  an  order  of  Dar.  without 
the  necessary  words  of  intr.  The  superfluous  sentence  here  makes  a 
very  suitable  intr.,  and  we  may  confidently  restore  them  to  their  proper 
place,  reading  ]^iy  for  Sy.  Esd.  has  an  intr.,  but  not  a  very  suitable 
one.     V.  on  6^ 

The  text  here,  therefore,  originally  stood  as  follows :  xmjK  ps'is  (intr.) 

N"i3Dni3N  nnij3i  ■'jnj  ihe'i  mnj  n^j?  nno  'jnn  (the  letter)  cim-Sj;  inSiy  >t 

ND^tf  joSd  cimS  mnj— i3j;3  n.    Then  to  6«  we  should  transpose  jnx 

.nij3  a\n3  r\i•[^^  niSy  nSif  Nnjnis  nd'^d  cim 

6.  iJtr-ifl]  (gSA  Staaatprjati;,  a  word  occurring  only  in  7'',  and  Gn.  40', 
for  Heb.  ]y^^o,  "interpretation";  so  here  (5  understands  "transla- 
tion"; cf.  on  4",  the  original  being  in  some  other  language,  perhaps 
Bab. — 7.  Nrsjns]  (g  pijatv^'^,  pf)[j.a''  (so  ^■^  in  v."). — n'^3  aoh-y]  (g  with 
exact  literalness  cfpTjvY)  xaaa,  Esd.  with  greater  freedom  xat'petv  (xo'r'tt') 
and  connects  nSo  (xivxa)  with  v. ',  icavxa  yvwaxa  eaxw. — 8.  Nn:nD  niri'S] 
d  TouSa{o:v  %topav,  Esd.  xcopav  x-^s  'louSatag,  Esd.  has  a  -f-  xal  Tepou- 
aaXf)^  x-J)v  xoXtv  xaxeXipopiev  x^?  atxtAaXwaia?  xoil<;  xpsffPux^pou?  xtov 
'louSafwv  Iv  'IspouaaXTjyL  x^  xoXet,  showing  a  ^atf  rd.  in  two  ways  as 
in  V.  5. — x3-\]  is  attributive  of  xnSs,  but  Esd.  (olxov  xy  xupfw  ti^yo'v 
xatv6v)  connects  with  n'3,  a  more  natural  statement  from  foreigners. — 
SSj]  6<  t.  equivalent  to  the  Heb.  word  and  mng.  "rolling."  But  (B 
has  ExXexxol?  (ip^  in  Ez.  27"),  Esd.  §uaxwv  xoXuxsXwv  =  Heb.  niu  pt* 


I40  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

"ip\  In  view  of  the  forced  mng.  which  must  be  given  to  VVj  we  must 
accept  the  testimony  of  the  Gk.  and  rd.  either  "hewn  stones"  or 
"splendid  stones";  the  latter  is  best  supported,  the  former  makes  the 
best  sense.  Otherwise  we  might  correct  on  basis  of  niSij  □•'J3n,  but 
h^-\i  does  not  occur  in  B.  Aram. — nShd]  Dn.  s',  Kautzsch,'<«,  Mar.  §  ", 
cf.  Heb.  Spd,  As.  kiitallu.  (&  iolyo\c„  Esd.  o't'xoiq^,  loiyoic,'^^.  ^'=  read- 
ing is  a  blunder. — NJiiJOx]  (^  e-ictSi^tov^'^,  a<s(f(xkGi<^,  Esd.  Iicl  axouS^s. 
It  is  a  word  of  frequent  occurrence  (6'-  '=•  "  717-21. 26)  and  connected 
with  lay  exc.  in  two  cases  (6^  7")-  Andreas  derives  from  Iranian 
uspuni,  late  Pers.  is  pari,  "completed."  So  the  mng.  assigned  is  "care- 
fully," "thoroughly."  Mey.  cites  a  stamp  mark  on  the  lion  from 
Abydos,  where  he  holds  pddn  has  the  mng.  "precise"  or  "accurate" 
{Ent.^"--*^).  The  best  sense  here  would  be  as  (§  "skilfully"  or 
Esd.  "rapidly." — n'^XD]  (^  euoooiitat^'^  xotxsjOuvet^,  euoSouyievov  Esd. — 
9.  nija::S]  in  v.'  n'jjS;  this  is  the  only  place  where  the  repeated  ques- 
tion differs  from  the  original  in  v. '.  We  should  rd.  here  m^h,  or 
prob.  in  both  cases  NjanS  as  in  v.  -,  which  is  the  normal  form  (Mar. 
§",  Str.,  §-")• — 10-  3in3j]  is  difficult,  the  construction  changing  from 
inf.  to  impf.  with  n.  (^  has  uffxe  ypitj^at  [aot^],  apparently  a  correc- 
tion; Esd.  v.'xX  ypat|;ai  aoi,  and  that  is  prob.  the  original  form. — D'.r]  (g 
6v6;xaTa,  so  Guthe  reads  nnn''ir. — onv^sia]  is  usually  regarded  as  a 
Hebraism,  but  Torrey  shows  that  it  is  good  Aram.  (ES.^"). — 11.  nmpo 
n:i]  ®  xpb  TouTou,  taking  's  as  prep.,  Esd.  sixxpouQev. — m]  Esd.  \^z- 
yaiXou  %a\  i^x^P^^- — ■^'^'^^c]  (S  xotTirjpTtaaTo  tzuTbv  auToli;,  suggesting  that 
the  original  rd.:  and  a  great  king  built  it  for  Israel  and  cojnpleted  it  for 
them.  Thus  we  should  better  understand  Sxis''''?. — 12.  iTJ-in]  f  but 
cf.  Heb.  TJ1,  (S  xapcipytaav,  Esd.  icapaxtxpavTei;  i^txapTov. — NnDj]  om. 
(6^.  XaXSxtou^^,  Esd.  PotatXIws  twv  XaXSafwv,  after  which  we  might 
emend  a^po^  ^SE. — 13.  S23  -n]  lacking  in  ($^^.  The  difficulty  of  call- 
ing Cy.  king  of  Bab.  in  this  connection  is  obviated  in  ^  tou  ^otacXsujav- 
To?  (x.al)  xwv  ^a^uXoivtuv,  and  in  Esd.  p.  y,b)girxq  Ba^.  The  better  sense 
suggests  that  Esd.  has  the  original  text.  The  vb.  '^Sd  is  not  found 
in  B.  Aram.,  but  it  might  well  be.  We  should  thus  understand  the 
repetition  of  Cy. — 14.  pBjn].  On  the  form,  unassimilated,  see  Mar.  §  *'. 
— nSd-hS]  (^^^  rightly  votov  (so  Esd.),  since  in  this  letter  it  means  the 
Bab.  temple. — nsa*  nna  n  nsc]  can  scarcely  be  right;  ®  Q-qaccQpogdXacr.i 
[xqi  sxl  Toij  Orjaaupoij]  bracketed  part  not  in  ^.  This  may  be  a  confu- 
sion of  the  offices  of  Mithredath  and  Shes.  (i').  Esd.  has  Zopoga^eX  xal 
Sa^ovaaffcipq)  T(p  sxapxv,  an  evidently  harmonistic  note,  nna*  may  be 
an  accidental  anticipation  of  nn-i:'  (so  Str.)  and  its  omission  seems 
necessary. — 15.  hSk]  (S  -rcavxa^^,  xaOxot^.  hSn  is  Heb.,  the  Aram,  be- 
ing iSn  and  Mar.  §"  so  reads. — Stn]  v.  Mar.  § «»,  Baer,  BD.". — rmn] 
is  Haph.  imv.  from  nnj  Mar.  §  ^^,  Kautzsch,  §  '^  On  the  peculiar  com- 
bination of  three  imperatives,  v.  Kautzsch,  §  '*.  Maqqeph  joins  the 
words  to  show  close  connection,  "go,  place,"  expressing  but  a  single 


EZRA     42'b_5l8  j^j 

idea. — sinvs]  is  used  in  same  sense  as  Heb.  njion  (3').  The  word  occurs 
in  Eleph.  Pap.  in  same  connection,  "on  the  place  where  it  had  stood 
before"  (Sachau,='). — 16.  an^]  is  not  to  be  explained  as  a  Hebraism; 
it  is  used  in  Palestinian  Aram,  in  the  sense  of  "lay"  and  that  is  re- 
quired here  (Schueltens,  ZAW.  i902,'«-). — aSr]  (S  iTsX^aeiQ,  Esd.  IXa^sv 
cuTllstav;  it  is  Pe.  pass.  ptc. — 17.  ntjj  ni3]  (Si^  ■ja'C,o(fu'kav.ioiq,  Esd. 
P'.pXtoqjuXotxfon;;  both  represent  ni3  by  <puXax(ots,  one  having  "treasury" 
as  MT.,  the  other  "library."  But  v.  6'.  Prob.  Esd.  represents  an  in- 
terpretation, the  annals  being  preserved  in  the  royal  treasury,  a  general 
storehouse,  nnn  and  S33  n,  videtur  delendum  esse  (Str.  =),  cf.  6',  but 
as  the  edict  was  found  at  Ecbatana,  ^212  in  6'  must  be  stricken  out. 
In  this  V.  it  is  better  to  om.  nnn  which  is  lacking  in  (^^^,  and  which 
may  have  got  here  from  6'.  (S>^^,  however,  has  a  larger  variant,  run- 
ning: Toij  p«CTt>.£w<;  ^a^uXuvo?;  Esd.  correctly  Iv  Tot<;  PaatXcxots  ^t^Xio- 
9uXotx{ots  Tou  xupi'ou  (Kupou)  [paatXiax;  dup.]  toI<;  Iv  ^aPuXwvt. — ^HN  = 
Heb.  Z'l,  <S  cTcco?  yvy?. 

6"^  =  Esd.  6'^■^^  The  decree  of  Cyrus  is  found  at  Ec- 
batana.— 1.  Made  a  decree]  is  unnecessarily  formal  here;  the 
reference  is  scarcely  to  a  pubHc  proclamation,  therefore  gave  an 
order  is  better. — In  the  library  (literally,  house  of  books)  where 
the  treasures  were  stored  in  Babylon],  This  is  fuller  than  house 
of  treasures  of  $^'^.  Probably  the  former  passage  should  be  cor- 
rected to  agree  with  this  (so  Torrey).  We  should  infer  that  the 
library  or  book-room  was  a  part  of  a  larger  treasury.  In  Baby- 
lonia is  either  an  addition,  or  was  probably  an  error,  for  in 
Ecbatana  as  v.  2.  A  Jewish  writer  may  have  meant  Babylonia 
to  include  Persia. — 2.  And  there  was  found  in  Achmetha]  i.  e., 
Ecbatana,  the  capital  of  Media  and  the  summer  residence  of 
the  Persian  kings;  it  was  captured  by  Cyrus  in  550  B.C.  It  has 
been  identified  by  Jackson  with  modern  Hamadam  {Persia 
Past  and  Present, ^^'^). — In  the  castle  which  is  in  the  province  of 
Media].  The  exact  spot  where  the  record  was  found  is  de- 
scribed; it  appears  that  the  library  was  a  part  of  the  treasury 
and  that  a  part  of  the  royal  residence. — A  certain  roll,  and  thus 
it  was  written  therein].  "Roll"  apparently  shows  a  Hebrew 
colouring,  for  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  these  records  were 
all  made  on  the  now  familiar  clay  tablets. — Memorandum]  is 
interpreted  rightly  by  Mey.  as  a  sort  of  title  to  the  document 
which  follows. — 3.  The  record  of  Cyrus  is  now  quoted:   In 


142  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  first  year  of  King  Cyrus].  It  is  quite  unlikely  that  Cyrus 
would  call  539  (or  538)  his  ist  year.  It  would  be  all  right  if 
put  as  Esd.  2*'  (Heb.  5^^),  in  the  first  year  that  Cyrus  was  king 
of  Babylonia.  R.  may  have  changed  the  year  to  agree  with  i^. 
— The  place  of  sacrificing  sacrifices]  may  be  construed  as  in  ap- 
position with  "house  of  God."  The  following  clause  is  unin- 
telligible: "let  the  foundations  thereof  be  strongly  laid,"  as 
ARV.  cannot  be  made  out  of  the  text,  and  has  poor  support 
in  the  Yrss.  Esd.  combines  with  the  preceding  clause  and 
renders:  house  of  the  Lord  where  they  continually  ofer  sacrifices 
by  fire.  This  is  the  simplest  and  only  intelligible  text. — Its 
height  sixty  cubits  and  its  breadth  sixty  cubits].  But  its  length 
is  not  mentioned.  It  is  certain  that  we  have  an  omission  here. 
The  obscure  and  corrupt  clause  must  have  given  the  length  of 
the  building,  for  Cyrus  would  not  have  given  two  dimensions 
and  left  out  the  third.  The  dimensions  of  Solomon's  temple 
were:  60  cubits  in  length,  20  in  breadth,  and  30  in  height  (i 
K.  6^).  So  that  the  new  temple  was  six  times  as  big  as  the  old 
one.  These  figures  are  wrong,  for  the  new  temple  was  much 
smaller  than  the  old  one  (3^-  Hg.  2^). — 4.  Three  layers  of  hewn 
stone  and  one  layer  of  timber]  continuing  the  description  of  the 
building  specifications.  "One"  is  the  correct  reading,  though 
the  text  has  "new";  "new"  is  in  ARV.  and  without  even  a 
marginal  alternative;  RV.™  is  correct.  It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand this  method  of  building.  According  to  i  K.  6^^  7'^  Sol- 
omon built  the  inner  court  of  the  temple  and  the  outer  court 
of  his  palace  with  three  courses  of  hewn  stone  and  one  course  of 
cedar  beams.  Delitzsch  supposed  that  the  rows  or  layers  were 
vertical,  but  that  has  little  to  commend  it,  and  it  fails  to  explain 
an  unintelligible  method  of  building.  The  similarity  to  i  K. 
6^''  would  suggest  that  the  statement  is  due  to  R.  rather  than  to 
Cyrus. — The  outlay  shall  be  given  from  the  house  of  the  king]. 
Esd.  Cyrus  the  king.  In  v.  ^  we  have  "from  the  property  of 
the  king,"  and  that  more  appropriate  expression  should  be  read 
here.  As  the  temple  was  not  begun  in  the  time  of  Cyrus,  this 
grant  was  naturally  inoperative. — 5.  This  verse  begins  exactly 
like  5"  and  it  agrees  in  substance  with  s"''-  ^^,  but  not  in  words. 


EZRA   424b-6i8  143 

It  appears  that  both  passages  were  originally  the  same,  but  now 
both  are  in  part  corrupt.  But  one  is  supposed  to  be  a  state- 
ment of  the  Jews  in  520  B.C.,  and  the  other  a  copy  of  a  decree 
of  Cyrus  in  538.  The  identity  of  language  shows  that  both 
passages  are  not  authentic.  One  may  be  original  and  the  other 
made  up  from  it. 

V.  ^^  is  even  more  corrupt  than  s*'.  It  is  true  that  5"  '•  casts  the 
decree  partly  into  narrative  form,  while  this  purports  to  quote  directly. 
My  own  belief  is  that  both  passages  are  late  interpolations  to  make 
the  decree  agree  with  i^  f-,  and  that  they  represent  a  growth.  They 
are  quite  unnecessary  and  really  drag  in  an  extraneous  element  into 
the  question  at  issue,  which  v/as  not  the  title  to  temple  vessels,  but  the 
building  of  the  temple.  It  is  instructive  to  compare  the  decree  of 
Cy.  with  the  quoted  statement  of  the  Jews  in  5"-i5. 

oya  Bi:'  ndSd  cms  ndSd  v-\^:h  rnn  nyyz  6' 

n  K'jND  r|si  (5'<)    NjaS  Nn  nhSx  no  5" 

1JXD  1x1    (6=)  Njan''  Nfin  aStt-n-'a  nhSx  nij  6' 

sSs'in-fD  psjn  ixnDnj  n  >xdD3i  nam  i-i  xnSx  no  51* 
nSj^tjc  p£3jn  ni-jn3i:3j  n  ndD31  Nam  n  xnSx  nia  6* 

IDH  nnx  51^  ■  •  ■  i3>n>i  S32    IT  NSo''nS  inn  S^ini  aScno  n  5" 
inn  juipni  S^iS  Sjini  aStrn-'^  n  6^ 

nhSn  n''23  nnni  n-inxS  D'?B'n''a-n  aho^nh  6^ 

In  each  version  there  is  an  omission  of  a  practically  complete  section. 
In  one  case  the  lacking  passage  is  Cy.  the  king  brought  them  out  from  the 
temple  of  Bab.  to  Shes.  by  name,  whom  he  had  appointed  governor,  aiid  he 
said  to  him,  take  these  vessels,  go  place.  By  omitting  this  the  sense  is  not 
impaired,  but  rather  improved.  In  the  other  passage  the  lacking  sec- 
tion has  the  dub.  phrase  where  sacrifices  are  offered,  etc.,  the  state- 
ment about  the  dimensions  of  the  temple,  and  about  payment  from  the 
royal  funds.     The  decree  loses  nothing  by  this  omission. 

That  the  passages  are  dependent  is  made  clear  by  the  most  cursory 
inspection.  The  report  made  by  Tattenai  and  the  decree  of  Cy.  after- 
ward discovered  at  Ecbatana  could  not  have  accidentally  agreed  to 
such  an  extent  as  we  find  here.  The  differences  even  in  words  are  very 
few.    The  extra  clause  in  5'*  n  xSa^nS  is  possibly  added  on  the  basis  of 


144  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

I';  la^H"'  and  ^n^nn'  are  only  accidental  variations.  The  final  clause  in 
6'  is  absolutely  unintelligible,  and  its  resemblance  to  the  clear  state- 
ment of  5'^  is  so  close  that  the  former  is  manifestly  a  corruption  of  the 
latter.  The  awkward  nnni  curiously  has  a  parallel  in  5 '5,  where  it  cor- 
responds to  IHM. 

Rendering  the  passage  now  and  making  certain  selections  we  have: 
In  the  first  year  of  Cy.  the  king  0}  Bab.,  Cy.  the  king  made  a  decree  that 
the  house  of  God  should  be  built,  and  that  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  God, 
both  gold  and  silver,  which  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  away  from  the  temple 
in  Jerus.  and  brought  to  Bab.  should  be  restored  to  the  temple  in  Jerus. ; 
and  the  house  of  God  shall  be  halt  upon  its  site.  The  last  clause  is  super- 
fluous. It  might  originally  have  been  "let  therefore  the  house  of  God 
be  built  upon  its  site."  Or  this  clause  may  be  the  comment  of  the 
complainants,  "and  (now)  the  house  of  God  is  building  upon  its  site." 

This  is  prob.  all  that  was  in  the  original  decree.  It  is  certainly  suf- 
ficient that  Cy.  should  have  authorised  the  building  of  the  temple  and 
the  restoration  of  the  sacred  vessels.  In  i^-"  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
vessels,  but  the  statement  that  they  were  returned  (i'  '■)  indicates  that 
they  may  well  have  been  covered  by  the  decree.  The  added  material 
in  6%  to  the  effect  that  support  was  to  come  from  the  king,  has  its 
parallel  in  i^  where  the  aid  was  to  come  from  the  Jews,  and  it  may 
have  crept  in  from  6^.  But  the  comparison  certainly  increases  our 
distrust  of  the  Jewish  apologia  in  5iib-i6  We  are  constrained  to  pro- 
nounce against  the  authenticity  of  that  passage. 

1,  Nni3D  n>3]  (&  ^tpXtoOT^xat?,  Esd.  as  in  5"'  P:^Xto9uXax,fot?.  Esd.* 
has  PaaiXixiot?  ^t^. — 2.  npchn]  old  Pers.  Havgmatana,  Bab.  Agmatanu. 
(&  om.  ^,  A[i.aeaA,  Ex^otTovot?!-!^^''-.— Nn-\03]  f  ^^^  has  a  dup.  ev  x6Xet 
Iv  T^  ^lipet,  Esd.'-  pipet  only.  Bipt?  is  found  in  Jos.  'Ev  xoXst  is  a  gl., 
explaining  a  word  unknown  to  all  the  Gk.  translators.  The  corre- 
sponding Heb.  nnia  occurs  many  times  in  late  Heb.,  esp.  in  Est.,  cf. 
Ne.  i>  28  72.  It  is  from  As.  birtu,  the  common  word  for  "fortress"  or 
"citadel"  (Mar.^^).  It  here  means  the  castle  in  which  the  king  lives. 
— NnjnD  nna]  lacking  <S^^  and  rejected  by  Berth. — hSjd]  is  pure  Heb. 
and  only  here  in  B.  Aram.  <&  has  xs<paXc<;,  which  represents  hSjd  in 
Ez.  29  3'-  ='  Ps.  40'.  As  it  is  followed  by  \lIol,  and  so  =  c.  i,  it  can 
only  be  a  marginal  reference  to  the  other  decree  of  Cy.  in  Ezr.  i. — 
njnDi]  can  scarcely  be  different  from  lioi,  4'';  (&  ux6t«.vT](jLa. — 3.  no 
nhSn]  after  <&  icepl  oYxou  we  should  prefix  V.  <&^  shows  a  dup..  add- 
ing lepoO.  Or  we  may  follow  Esd.  and  om.  Nn'3.  (&^  lacks  Njani  nr\^2, 
so  that  the  decree  concerned  only  sacrifices  and  vessels,  and  not  the 
rebuilding. — ipn]  is  suspended  in  air  as  completely  as  Nn>3.  <&  has 
t6i:ou  connected  apparently  with  iirepf  understood. — ''Va]  <&^^  Sxaptxa, 
which  does  not  occur  elsw.  in  (&,  but  in  Aq.  Th.  Sym.  in  Job  20«  = 
N'tP  a.  X.— j^SaiDc]  t  <8  EeTjxevBA,  TtO'^iu'-.    The  sense  of  Heb.  Sao  will 


EZRA   424b-6i8  14^ 

not  fit;  the  traditional  "raised"  has  no  authority.  (B  scarcely  makes 
sense,  "and  let  the  foundation  be  laid,"  but  ^  adds,  a  foundation  of  a 
cubit.  Haupt  suggests  that  'nvi'vs  =  Heb.  na'N,  "fire  offering,"  and  cf. 
As.  zahalu,  so  "and  bring  in  his  fire  offerings."  He  compares  Esd.  oxou 
liciOuouatv  Stot  xupb<;  svBeXsxoiJ?.  '^'here  they  continually  oj'er  sacrifices  by 
fire;  but  those  who  quote  this  overlook  the  fact  that  it  is  the  only 
mention  of  the  sacrifices  in  Esd.,  that  is,  this  text  lacks  rnat..  int^Ni  = 
Stii  Tcup6?,  i'''?3iDD  =  eySsXexou?  =  Heb.  '\''r?Pi.  The  corruption  seems 
quite  hopeless,  the  Vrss.  having  as  much  difficulty  and  reaching  as 
many  conclusions  as  modern  scholars. — pnc-nins]  lacking  in  (6^ 
Esd.^^;  ^  has  'iq  (rnw')-  It  is  most  prob.  that  the  original  passage  gave 
the  missing  dimension  of  the  temple.  I  venture  to  make  the  conjec- 
ture that  the  original  text  was  r\m-y  Dn-i-j?  hnd  pcx  hdini. — 4.  r^^nj]  is 
generally  derived  from  the  As.  nadbaku,  which  means  "mountain  slope," 
but  Zimmem  says  this  remains  questionable  (Mar.",  Mey.").  The 
mng.  "course"  is  quite  certain;  (5  Soiiot. — S^j]  lacking  in  (&^,  xpa- 
xatdt*'-,  V.  on  5 5. — >n]  Esd.  adds  eyx'^P'O'^)  which  represents  mrx  in 
Ex.  12"  Lv.  18-'=  24=2  Nu.  1529;  in  Ps.  37"  ]r;-\  n-.is,  "a  native  tree"; 
hence  here  native  wood  to  distinguish  it  from  the  wood  brought  from 
Lebanon.  The  native  and  cheaper  wood  would  serve  to  build  into 
the  walls. — mn]  f  (&,  sls'^'^,  xatvwv  I'va^^^'^-,  a  dup.  reading  both  mn, 
"new,"  and  in  "one."  The  latter  is  correct. — Nnpsj]  v. »  \  from  root 
pflj,  cf.  5'^,  "what  is  brought  out,"  "outlay."  <j|  SofiuivT],  which  oc- 
curs only  in  Apocr. — .113]  but  in  v.  ^  more  appropriately  ■'Ddj. — 5.  ''JNc] 
but  in  51'  n  n^jno. — iihz^ri\  rd.  with  <&  xn''3,  as  in  5'^ — nhSx  .  .  .  S2>m]. 
To  this  point  our  text  follows  5"  verbatim  except  as  noted  above. 
Here  we  have  a  summarising  of  5"b-i5.  0|b  jjg^  Q^iy  ^^\  t6xou  stIOt)  ev 
o"x(j)  ToO  esoO,  i.  e.,  it  lacks  all  but  nhSs  ni33  nnm  nnriNS.  al  follows  MT., 
but  with  manifest  corruptions.  Esd.^-*-  supports  a  shorter  text:  dtxo- 
xaTaaiaB^vat  ei?  xbv  olxov  tJjv  lv  Isp.  ou  ■^v  -/.sfiAgva  and  adds  a  dup, 
reading,  oxox;  TEGfj  Ixst;  ^  has  only  the  double  reading  at  the  end. 
Mar.  suggests  a  restoration  thus :  ji'tI''^'*''  Jinnn^i  a':'a'n>3  n  nSd^hS  jn^-inM 
kdSn  noa;  but  this  source  used  Sa^n  only  of  the  temple  of  Bab. — 
mnNS]  is  surely  connected  with  ni.nx-'rj?  as  5";  it  is  impossible  here. 
Indeed,  the  passage  is  hopelessly  corrupt. 


6-12  =  Esd.  6"^"^".  The  reply  of  Darius.— 6.  As  shown 
above  on  5^  the  introduction  to  Darius's  letter  has  been  trans- 
posed. (Torrey  notes  a  lacuna  between  w.  ^  °'"*  ^,  ES.^^'). 
This  section  should  begin:  Then  Darius  the  king  sent  an  answer 
unto  him,  and  therein  was  written  as  follows. — Be  ye  far  from 
thence]  is  not  a  striking  command.  Esd.  keep  away  fro^n  the  place 
is  stronger. — 7.  Let  the  work  of  this  house  of  God  alone],  forbid- 


146  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ding  any  kind  of  interference.  Esd.  names  Zerubbabel  here  as 
"the  servant  of  the  Lord  and  governor  of  Judah."  3  Esd. 
lacks  the  whole  verse. — 8.  The  king  further  commands  that 
the  decree  of  Cyrus  be  executed  by  providing  the  money  for  the 
building  operations  out  of  the  royal  tribute  collected  in  the 
Syrian  province.  That  we  have  no  evidence  of  any  such  help 
for  the  Jews  does  not  disprove  the  authenticity  of  this  order; 
for  it  was  one  thing  for  the  king  to  give  such  an  order,  but  quite 
another  matter  to  get  the  satrap  of  a  distant  province  to  carry 
it  out.  In  Esd.,  however,  the  satrap  is  enjoined  to  help  in  the 
work  of  rebuilding,  but  the  payments  out  of  the  tribute  are 
only  for  sacrificial  purposes. — 9.  And  whatever  is  necessary]. 
There  follows  in  apposition  the  list  of  articles  to  be  furnished: 
young  bullocks,  rams,  and  sheep  for  burnt-offerings  to  the  God 
of  heaven  (v.  on  i^,  where  this  expression  occurs  in  a  Persian 
decree),  and  wheat,  salt,  wine,  and  oil  as  required  by  the  priest. 
The  latter  list  provides  for  the  minchah,  or  meal-offering,  which 
was  made  of  fine  flour,  moistened  with  oil  and  salted  (Lv.  2^-^'). 
Wine  was  required  for  the  daily  drink-offering  (Ex.  29^). — Day 
by  day  without  fail]  implies  that  this  provision  was  for  the  daily 
offering,  and  while  we  might  suspect  that  the  Persian  oflacials 
would  not  be  concerned  about  such  details,  still  it  is  possible 
that  this  is  a  reflection  of  a  Jewish  priestly  influence  at  the  Per- 
sian court. — 10.  That  they  may  offer  pleasing  sacrifices].  "Sac- 
rifices of  sweet  savor"  (ARV.)  is  scarcely  justifiable,  an  error 
as  old  as  CI.  The  root  idea  is  "rest,"  therefore  "pleasing"  or 
perhaps  "propitiating." — And  pray  for  the  life  of  the  king  and  of 
his  sons].  This  explains  the  motive  of  the  grant  for  sacrifices. 
The  sacrifice  would  be  pleasing  to  God  and  incline  him  favour- 
ably toward  the  offerer.  The  Persian  king  was  not  averse  to 
the  good  ofifi.ces  of  other  gods  than  his  own.  This  expression 
is  surely  a  sign  of  the  Persian  point  of  view.  Sachau  compares 
this  with  "the  sons  of  the  royal  house"  in  Eleph.  Pap.^°. 

11.  Any  man  that  alters  this  command])  "frustrate"  (BDB.) 
is  scarcely  justifiable;  the  idea  is  not  to  punish  the  one  who 
interferes  with  the  execution  of  the  decree,  but  the  one  who 
would  venture  to  change  its  terms.     Berth,  interprets  in  the 


EZRA     424b_5l8  j^y 

sense  of  "transgress"  or  "violate."  The  punishment  will  be 
twofold;  the  culprit  will  be  impaled  on  a  beam  or  stake  pulled 
from  his  own  house,  and  the  house  will  be  made  a  ruin.  The 
impalement  was  a  Semitic  method  of  execution,  and,  as  Sieg. 
says,  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Roman  crucifixion.  Sieg. 
claims  that  impalement  existed  among  the  Hebrews,  citing 
Nu.  25*  2  S.  21^-  ^  BDB.  says  correctly  that  the  method  of 
execution  was  uncertain.  Herod,  testifies  to  the  custom  among 
the  Assyrians  (iii,i^^).  The  words  may  be  rendered,  "let  him 
be  lifted  up  and  stuck  upon  it"  (the  beam).  The  punishment 
has  quite  a  different  turn  in  Esd.  6^^,  let  a  beam  he  ptilled  from 
his  own  house,  and  let  him  be  hung  thereon,  and  his  property  shall 
become  the  king's.  That  has  a  more  modern  and  less  Oriental 
note. — 12.  This  verse  has  been  generally  discredited.  Esd. 
has  the  original  text,  if  we  may  judge  by  inherent  fitness,  thus: 
and  the  Lord,  whose  name  is  called  there,  shall  annihilate  all  kings 
and  the  nation  who  stretches  forth  his  hand  to  hinder  or  to  harm  that 
house  of  the  Lord  which  is  in  Jerusalem.  The  writer  has  in  mind 
the  petty  neighbours  of  Judah,  who  had  shown  marked  hos- 
tility to  the  Jews,  and  who  are  now  warned  that  Yahweh  him- 
self shall  do  them  harm  if  they  bar  the  progress  of  the  temple. 
As  the  king  had  sought  the  favour  of  Yahweh  for  his  own  house 
(v.  i"),  so  he  naturally  invokes  his  displeasure  upon  all  who 
interfere  with  the  restoration  of  his  cult. 

6.  '•jnn]  (gBA  ija^g  Scjas-re,  forgetting  the  n.  p. — Jinnusi].  The  sf.  should 
be  second  p. — nn  pp''m]  (S  [xaxpav  ovtec;^^,  [x.  (Jxsxsxe'-,  Esd.  dtxixsaGat. 
— nDn-p]  d  £X£t9ev,  Esd.  toO  tozou  =  inx-p. — 7.  Nnini  nne]  is  lack- 
ing in  (S"^,  Mar.  cm.  also,  ol  i^iQYourjilvot  t.  'Iouo^.  Esd.  exapxov  x.  louS. 
prefixing  xbv  •rcatSa  xupfou  Zopo^a^sX. — •'^ti''?]  with  C5  Esd,  we  must  om. 
S,  since  ^yz'  as  well  as  nno  is  subj.  of  pja\  Esd.  has  a  4-  after  aya: 
6Xoax£pw?  oixoSo^AYjcrat  xal  aievfaoti. — 8.  otr]  Esd.  6-^  aixtJi-^^wata?  =  lat?, 
a  word  not  found  in  B.  Aram. — "jSn]  lacking  in  (&^^,  a  text  approved 
by  Mar.  Esd.  has  [J-^xpt  =  ly.  nj2sS,  Esd.  sxtTsXsaOiivat,  so  "  until  the 
house  of  God  is  finished." — ddj]  726  f.  The  word  occurs  in  late  Heb. 
and  the  mng.  is  clearly  established  as  "property." — njiadn].  V.  on  5'. 
— 9.  jntt'n]  pi.  of  nnts'n  f,  ^^^  baxig-r^xa,  (Si^  Sdov. — jmn  1J2]  (Heb. 
onitf)  means  "young  bullocks."  This  is  associated  with  Lv.  4'-  "  p  "ib 
sp2.  But  ^J3  is  lacking  in  (5'-  and  in  Esd.,  also  in  v.  "  7",  and  may  have 
been  introduced  here  under  the  influence  of  Lv.    <&  has  three  render- 


148  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ings  of  pii.n :  ^owv'^'^,  \}.b<;~/_o'j<^- ,  xaupou?^-^'-'-.  Moaxou?  may  represent  'ja. 
— iSs'  nS  n]  (S^'^  0  dav  alx-/jawfftv,  reading  '?x-',  and  being  a  repetition 
of  "d  iDXDa.  ©^  has  apparently  a  dup.,  the  above  preceded  by  ixa- 
paXX(4)txui;,  a  word  found  elsw.  only  in  Est.  3"  (Apocr.),  but  which 
may  represent  our  text,  since  "unchangeably"  would  be  a  suitable  ren- 
dering.— 10.  X^rh]  Mar.  §  "='. — pmn^j]  (Dn.  2«  f)  is  a  Hebraism,  occur- 
ring in  J  (Gn.  8")  and  very  often  in  P;  (&  suwSfa?  gives  a  wrong 
sense. — r'^^'^l  Mar.  §  '<«.  In  As.  saltu  is  used  in  sense  of  "entreat,"  but 
not  to  pray  to  a  deity,  Zim.  KAT.^-  "»•  »). — "n]  (S^  auTitjpfaq,  Xjiitriy^'^. 
The  former  may  represent  a  theological  interpretation. — 11.  noj]  here 
only  in  B.  Aram.,  but  it  is  a  common  Semitic  word  and  occurs  4  t.  in 
B.  Heb. — n"'p]  t  here  only  in  B.  Aram.  Pe.  pass.  ptc.  The  word  occurs 
twice  in  late  B.  Heb. — xn?:].  The  mng.  usually  given,  "smite,"  is 
scarcely  appropriate  here.  BDB.  gives  two  ideas,  one  of  impalement 
{v.  s.  ipi)  and  the  other  nail.  The  latter  would  imply  crucifixion, 
whereas  the  mng.  is  impalement,  d^^  •TcXyiyiQasTat  gives  the  true 
sense.  (5^^  has  luayrjasTa!,  which  has  the  mng.  impale. — iSu]  d  xb 
xax'  i[Ki^^,  dq  Siapxayfjv'-.  Dn.  2^  ^-^  f-  Jensen  compares  As.  naivalii-, 
"ruin"  (BDB.).  The  mng.  given  "dunghill"  is  not  appropriate,  though 
that  sense  is  found  in  Targum;  "ruin"  is  better  in  ever>'  case.  (S^- 
" plunder"  would  give  good  sense,  but  it  is  dub.  whether  that  mng. 
is  permissible. — nn-Sy]  lacking  in  ®,  but  found  in  Esd.;  "besides"  or 
"in  addition  to"  is  better  than  "on  this  account,"  since  the  latter 
would  apply  to  both  parts  of  the  punishment. — 12^  is  regarded  as 
spurious  by  virtually  all  modern  scholars;  Sta.  Gesch.  ii,'",  Kost.-', 
Sieg.  Mey.".  Mey.'s  argument  is  typical:  "It  is  quite  impossible 
that  Dar.  in  an  official  document  should  call  in  question  the  contin- 
uance of  the  Pers.  sovereignty  and  speak  of  kings  and  peoples  who  in 
the  future  might  make  his  orders  inoperative."  Berth,  defends  the 
passage,  but  does  not  go  far  enough.  Mar.  rejects  nijtynS  as  gl.  with 
reference  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes;  but  the  Gk.  Vrss.  all  show  that  some 
word  belongs  here,  though  not  this  one.  Esd.  here  offers  a  simpler  and 
better  text :  h  xiipto?,  ou  th  ovotia  auTou  extx.iy.XT]Tat  Ixst,  dyavfoai  xivxa 
^autX^a  xal  eOvo?  0?  sxrevel  xstpa  auToO  xwXuaat  ^  xaxoTcotrjaat  ihy  oIx,ov 
xupfou  IxEtvov  xbv  Iv  'lepouaaX-rjiJ..  The  Deut.  phrase  is  more  accurately 
given  than  in  MT.  Dt.  more  than  P  appears  in  the  programme  of 
the  restoration. 

13-18  =  Esd.  7*''.  The  temple  is  finished  and  dedicated. 

Tattenai  and  his  fellows  respected  the  decree  of  Dar.;  the  work  on 
the  temple  was  pushed  forward  and  finished  in  the  6th  year  of  Dar. 
(515  B.C.).  A  service  of  dedication  was  held;  many  sacrifices  were 
offered;  the  pr.  and  Lev.  were  assigned  their  tasks  according  to  the 
book  of  Moses. 


EZRA   424b_6i8  149 

13.  Our  text  gives  but  a  general  and  rough  statement,  that 
Tattenai  et  al.  because  Darius  the  king  had  sent  acted  accordingly 
with  all  care];  but  in  Esd.  this  is  much  SLmplified,  following  closely 
the  commands  of  King  Darius  they  with  all  care  presided  over  the 
holy  works  laboring  with  the  elders  of  the  Jews  and  temple  officers. 
This  is  very  unlike  MT.,  but  it  agrees  with  the  Esd.  version  of 
the  Darius  letter  {cf.  v.  *).  The  passage  is  hard  to  explain  as 
a  later  addition,  since  the  Jews  would  not  be  likely  to  invent 
the  notion  that  hostile  foreigners  presided  over  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple,  especially  as  they  had  rejected  the  offered  assist- 
ance of  the  Samaritans  (4^"^). — 14.  And  the  elders  of  the  Jeios 
built  successfully  because  of  the  prophesying  of  Haggai  and  Zecha- 
riah]  cf.  5^  The  reference  here  is  to  the  problem  at  home;  all 
outward  difficulties  had  been  overcome  by  the  decree  of  Darius 
confirming  that  of  Cyrus;  but  the  books  of  the  prophets  named 
above  show  that  the  Jews  themselves  were  not  very  eager  to 
engage  in  public  works;  they  were  aroused  to  their  duty  and 
kept  at  it  by  the  inspiriting  oracles  of  these  prophets,  without 
whom  the  command  of  God  and  the  edicts  of  kings  would  have 
been  alike  ineffective.  The  mention  of  Artaxerxes  is  a  gloss,  as 
he  belongs  to  a  later  period.  As  we  have  the  singular,  king  of 
Persia,  Darius  or  Cyrus  may  also  be  a  gloss. — 15.  And  they  con- 
tinued that  house  until  the  third  day  of  the  month  Adar],  The  verb 
means,  literally,  brought  otit,  or  continued  until  it  was  finished. 
Esd.  reads  23d  day.  Adar  only  elsewhere  in  Est.  (8^  is  a  loan- 
word from  the  Babylonian.  It  is  the  12th  month,  February- 
March.  Our  text  runs,  which  is  the  sixth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Darius  the  king].  We  must  read  of  the  sixth  year  of  King  Darius, 
as  we  find  in  Esd.,  or  more  probably  an  original  Hebrew  year 
was  first  given,  which  was  synchronised  with  the  Persian  reign. 
The  temple  was  finished,  according  to  the  text,  in  the  spring  of 
515  B.C. 

16.  The  sons  of  Israel]  in  apposition  with  which  stands,  the 
priests  and  the  Levites  and  the  rest  of  the  sons  of  captivity].  That 
is,  these  three  classes  constituted  the  postexilic  community. — 
Made  a  dedication  of  the  house  of  God  with  joy].  Upon  the  com- 
pletion of  the  work  there  was  a  joyful  service  of  dedication. 


150  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Esd.  gives  quite  a  different  reading,  the  sons  of  Israel  and  the 
priests  and  the  Levites  and  the  rest  of  those  from  the  captivity  who 
had  joined  them  did  in  accordance  with  those  things  in  the  book 
of  Moses.  This  is  interesting  from  the  implication  that  many 
who  had  returned  from  exile  had  taken  no  part  in  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  temple,  a  statement  in  itself  highly  probable.  The 
reference  to  the  requirements  of  the  book  of  Moses  is  explained 
by  the  sacrifices  made  at  the  dedication. — 17.  The  numbers 
of  the  animals  sacrificed,  100  bullocks,  200  rams,  400  lambs, 
and  12  he-goats,  are  small  compared  to  those  offered  by  Solo- 
mon at  the  dedication  of  the  first  temple,  i  K.  8^-  ^^,  and  are 
not  unsuitable,  in  spite  of  Sieg.'s  doubt,  to  the  poorer  conditions 
of  the  new  community. — For  all  Israel  according  to  the  number 
of  the  tribes  of  Israel].  "Those  returned  deemed  themselves 
the  representatives  of  all  Israel"  (Sieg.).  They  may  have 
taken  to  heart  their  brethren  scattered  over  the  world  and  made 
the  offerings  in  their  behalf. — 18.  And  they  established  the 
priests  in  their  divisions  and  the  Levites  in  their  classes].  Accord- 
ing to  2  Ch.  35 5  the  priests  were  established  in  divisions  in 
Josiah's  time.  The  ordering  of  the  priests  and  Levites  is  de- 
scribed minutely  in  i  Ch.  23-26,  each  class  or  division  being  on 
duty  for  a  week  at  a  time.  For  the  condition  in  NT.  times  v. 
Lu.  i^-  ^  ^•. — For  the  service  of  God  who  is  in  Jerusalem].  (^ 
shows  a  later  conception,  reading, /or  the  service  of  the  holy  things 
of  the  house  of  God.  Esd.  reads,  and  the  priests  and  the  Levites 
stood  in  full  vestments,  according  to  their  tribes  {or  classes)  for  the 
works  of  the  Lord. — According  to  the  writing  of  the  book  of  Moses] 
i.  e.,  as  written  in  the  book  of  Moses.  V.  Nu.  3,  8.  Esd.  adds, 
ajid  the  gatekeepers  at  each  gate,  but  that  suggests  a  period  after 
Nehemiah  had  built  the  walls. 

13.  V.'' in  Esd.  is  as  follows:  xaTaKoXouSiQaavTe.;  rot?  uxb  tou  gadtXEWi; 
Aapefou  xpoaTaYsiutv  sTteaTctTouv  Tdiv  lepwv  ep^wv  IxttJieXeaTspov  auvsp- 
YouvTE?  x<ilq  Tupea^uTepotc;  tuv  'louSat'wv  %a\  kpoaTiictti;.  This  gives  a 
clear  sense  which  is  wanting  in  MT. — 14.  pnSxn]  for  which  (5  has  ol 
AsuetTQtt^^,  xaxrjuGiivov^,  Esd.  euoSa  i'^l^zxo  to;  kpa  spyot.  The  word  is  to 
be  taken  adverbially  with  pja,  they  Imill  successfully. — hn^^j  and  nj.'"\3] 
are  wanting  in  Esd.  V.  ^  is  regarded  as  a  gl.  by  many  (Mar.  Sieg. 
May.  el  al.).    With  Berth,  we  must  excise  the  name  of  Art.,  which 


EZRA   6i9"  151 

finds  a  place  here  on  account  of  4'-23,  though  the  name  is  supported  by 
all  the  Gk.  Vrss.  Sieg.  urges  against  the  passage  the  combining  of  a 
command  of  God  and  of  the  Pers.  kings.  But  in  Esd.  we  find  different 
words  used:  Sci  xpoaxAyfiaTOi;  tou  xupfou — (jlstq:  xijq  Y^'^'t^iQ^  '^-  Kupou 
X.  T.  X.,  by  the  command  of  Yahweh  and  with  the  permission  of  Cy.  That 
part  of  the  text  seems  unobjectionable.  fJJ,  ua]  are  both  lacking  in 
Esd.,  and  Berth,  may  be  right  in  changing  the  latter  to  "prophets." 
Otherwise  it  is  to  be  combined  with  iSSjt*',  they  finished  building. — 
15.  NisiB']  or  Qr.  'X"!:'.  Kautzsch,"  prefers  a  pi.  form  ps''!!*,  adopted  by 
Mar.  on  basis  of  ®  13.  Kautzsch  interprets  as  a  pass,  from  npn,  but 
De.  regards  it  as  Shafel  from  Bab.  asii,  and  that  fits  better.  The  usual 
rendering,  "complete,"  will  not  serve  here  unless  we  dispose  of  the 
following  ly,  which  is  well  attested.  We  cannot  say  "they  finished  the 
house  until  the  3d  of  Adar  ";  that  is  no  better  in  Aram,  than  in  English. 
But  from  the  root  asii  we  get  "  they  brought  out  or  continued  the  work 
until,"  etc. — nnSn  dv]  Esd.  TptTYji;  y.od  etxaSo?.  It  is  impossible  to 
tell  which  text  is  right,  though  Sieg.  follows  Guthe  in  preferring  the 
latter.  Jos.  {Ant.  xi,  4,  7)  agrees  with  Esd. — 'Nin  n]  is  certainly  wrong. 
Esd.  has  tou  exxou  exou?  PaaiXswq  Aapet'ou.  Mey.  (Eni.^*)  supposes 
some  words  to  have  fallen  out,  and  suggests,  "that  is  (the  12th  month) 
of  the  6th  year  of  Dar."  explanatory  of  the  Bab.  term  Adar.  It  is 
more  prob.  that  a  year  was  first  given  ace.  to  a  Jewish  calendar  and 
that  this  date  was  dropped  accidentally.  (S^  tries  to  help  along  by 
an  addition  of  ewq,  thus:  0?  eaTtv  sw?  exou?. — 17.  r"(in]  (@i  ^oaxoui;, 
but  Esd.  correctly  xaupou?. — jncx]  (S  ayivoui;,  Esd.  with  better  Gk. 
4'pva?. — prj?  n''flx]  (^  x'tJi-^pou?  aEywv,  Esd.  x<-\i&pouq.  The  same  redun- 
dancy is  found  in  late  Heb.  Dn.  8^^- «  2  Ch.  292',  but  cf.  8".  In 
Lv.  93  the  he-goat  is  a  sin-offering. — •'!33tt>]  Esd.^^  ipuXap/wv. — 18.  m^ay] 
which  referred  to  the  building  in  5'  here  indicates  the  temple  cult. 
— ntiSn]  (8^  ayiiay  ol'xou  xou  6eou. — iflo]  (S^  pt^Xtw  vopiou.  Esd.  adds: 
xal  o\  Oupupol  i(f'  |-/,(iaTou  icuXcovoi;,  3  Esd.  ct  ostearii  per  singidas  januas. 
This  passage  is  important,  for  it  indicates  that  the  Aram,  narrative  has 
broken  off  abruptly.  The  story  evidently  went  on  to  describe  the  in- 
stallation of  other  officials  of  the  temple.  Torrey  regards  the  words 
as  the  work  of  the  Chr.  Esd.  prob.  lacked  from  najn  v. "  to  oSsyn^a 
V. '«,  as  shown  by  the  repeated  £v  xy  Mwaitix;  Pf^Xtp,  and  by  the  sus- 
piciously close  agreement  with  MT. 

EZR.    6^3-"  =  ESD.     yio-i^      THE    OBSERVANCE    OF    THE 
PASSOVER. 

This  passage  has  suffered  like  many  other  parts  of  these  books  from  a 
mutilation  of  the  text.  The  purpose  of  the  mutilation  is  plain.  The 
passage  was  attached  by  the  Chr.  to  the  temple-building  story,  and  then 
was  modifted  to  make  it  conform  to  its  new  position  and  to  the  ideas 


152  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

of  the  editor.  To  comprehend  what  we  have  to  deal  with,  we  must 
have  the  original  text  so  far  as  it  can  be  recovered;  and  therefore  a 
translation  of  the  reconstructed  text  is  given  here.  The  justification 
for  the  changes  will  be  found  in  the  critical  notes.  In  this  passage  the 
Heb.  language  is  employed. 

(19)  And  the  sons  of  Israel  kept  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  first  month.  (20)  Now  the  priests  and  the  sons  of  the 
captivity  were  not  cleansed,  but  the  Levites  to  a  man  were  all  of  them 
clean,  and  they  [the  Levites]  sacrificed  the  passover  for  all  the  sons 
of  the  captivity,  and  for  their  brethren  the  priests  [and  for  them- 
selves]. (21)  And  the  sons  of  Israel,  all  that  had  separated  them- 
selves from  the  uncleanness  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  those 
who  had  returned  unto  them  from  the  captivity  to  seek  Yahweh  ate 
the  passover.  (22)  And  they  kept  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
seven  days,  rejoicing  before  Yahweh,  because  he  had  turned  the 
purpose  of  the  king  of  Assyria  unto  them  to  strengthen  their  hands 
for  the  worship  of  Yahweh  the  God  of  Israel. 

A  company  of  exiles  had  recently  arrived  in  Judah  through 
the  favour  of  one  known  only  as  "king  of  Assyria."  The 
Israelites  already  in  Judah  celebrated  the  Passover  at  its  regular 
time,  and  so  far  as  their  condition  permitted  the  recent  arrivals 
participated.  The  passage  shows  an  amalgamating  process  be- 
tween the  Jews  returning  from  exile  and  those  who  were  native 
in  Judah.    There  is  not  a  word  about  the  temple  or  its  building. 

It  is  usually  assumed  that  the  Chr.  wrote  the  passage  as  a  fitting  con- 
clusion to  the  temple-building  story.  Torrey  notes  that  the  temple 
was  finished  in  the  12th  month,  Adar,  v.  '=,  and  that  the  Chr.,  with  his 
usual  exactness  in  dates,  fills  in  the  next  month  with  the  keeping  of  the 
Passover.  The  Chr.  has  an  elaborate  description  of  the  celebration  of 
the  Passover  in  2  Ch.  35'-".  Many  phrases  are  identical  in  the  two 
passages.  But  in  our  passage  we  rd.  that  the  Lv.  slew  the  Passover 
for  the  others,  v. -°,  while  in  2  Ch.  35"  the  phrase  is  "prepared."  In- 
deed, the  points  of  identity  are  mostly  in  stock  phrases,  whicli  any 
writer  would  use.  The  Chr.  cannot  be  the  author  of  this  piece,  for  he 
would  not  mutilate  his  own  work  to  the  extent  we  find  here.  Those 
who  attribute  the  fragment  to  the  Chr.  do  so  on  the  basis  of  the  cor- 
rupt text. 

There  is  not  sufi&cient  evidence  to  determine  the  date  of  the  piece,  but 
such  indications  as  we  have  suggest  that  it  belongs  to  the  early  period. 


EZRA  6i'-«  153 

It  may  well  belong  to  the  time  of  Cj'.,  or  to  the  period  when  Zer.  and 
his  company  first  arrived  in  Jerus.  C.  3  describes  various  festivals 
that  were  kept,  and  this  may  have  been  among  them.  It  is  separated 
only  by  the  long  Aram,  insertion  4"-6's  and  may  originally  ha%-e  stood 
after  4^  or  even  in  the  early  part  of  c.  3. 

19.  The  day  for  this  feast  is  fixed  in  Ex.  12*. — The  sons  of 
the  captivity]  is  an  error  for  tlie  sons  of  Israel.  These  two  classes 
are  named  in  this  passage  in  contrast.  The  sons  of  Israel  are 
those  who  had  always  remained  in  Judah,  and  the  sons  of 
the  golah  are  those  who  returned  from  Babylonia. — 20.  This 
verse  in  MT.  runs  thus:  For  the  priests  and  Levites  had  cleansed 
themselves,  to  a  man  they  ivere  all  clean,  and  they  slew  the  passover 
for  all  the  sons  of  the  captivity  and  for  their  brethren  the  priests  and 
for  themselves].  "For  themselves"  can  only  refer  to  the  Le- 
vites. The  expression  is  cumbersome,  but  it  has  the  support  of 
all  texts.  Nevertheless  it  may  be  a  gloss.  The  idea  is  clear 
that  the  clean  Levites  sacrificed  the  Passover  on  behalf  of  the 
two  classes  stated  in  v.  ^  to  be  tmclean.  As  the  Passover  was 
kept  in  memory  of  the  return  from  the  capti\-ity  in  Egypt,  the 
festival  would  be  highly  significant  for  those  who  had  just  re- 
turned from  the  exile  in  Babylonia. — 21.  This  verse  also  re- 
quires correction  as  above.  "The  sons  of  Israel"  is  further 
defined.  During  the  exile  the  Jews  in  Judah  had  probably 
mingled  freely  with  the  surrounding  peoples,  called  in  our  books 
"the  people  of  the  land."  Now  with  the  return  of  some  exiles, 
there  was  an  earnest  re\'ival  of  Yahweh  worship,  in  the  interest 
of  which  some  of  the  Israelites  dissociated  themselves  from  the 
loose  ways  of  their  neighbours. — 22.  The  Feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread  was  vdrtually  a  part  of  the  Passover,  continuing  for 
seven  days  thereafter  (Ex.  12^=).  Instead  of  unth  joy  for  Yah- 
weh made  them  rejoice]  it  is  better  to  read  with  Esd.  rejoicing 
before  YaJrweh. — He  turfied  tJte  heart]  (or  counsel  as  Esd.)  refers 
to  some  especial  act  of  favour  shown  to  the  Israelites. — King 
of  Assyria]  is  strange  here.     We  should  expecl  "king  of  Persia." 

B.-Rys.  notes  that  in  Judith  2>  Nebuchadrezzar  is  called  king  of  the 
Assyrians  (the  same  confusion  is  found  in  2  K.  23");  as  the  kings  of 
Pers.  ruled  over  the  old  As.  domain,  the  title  might  be  used  by  a  Pers. 


154  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

king  (so  Berth.).  In  Ne.  138  Art.  is  called  king  of  Bab.  As  the  text 
is  supported  by  all  Vrss.  we  may  assume  that  the  phrase  was  in  the 
original  text.  It  is  usually  assumed  that  Dar.  is  meant,  e.  g.,  Sieg., 
but,  save  the  position  of  the  passage  assigned  by  the  Chr.,  there  is  no 
evidence  to  support  that  identification.  There  seems  to  be  room  to 
doubt  whether  such  a  mistake  would  have  been  made  as  this  by  any 
postex.  writer.  However  ignorant  the  Jews  may  have  been  of  con- 
temporary history,  they  knew  that  As.  had  long  been  defunct  and  that 
Pers.  was  the  real  power  of  this  time.  As  the  reference  is  to  one  who 
had  conferred  favours  upon  the  people  as  a  whole,  we  naturally  sup- 
pose the  king  of  Pers.  to  be  meant.  Yet  it  may  be  that  it  was  really 
a  satrap  in  the  old  As.  domains  who  was  called  by  courtesy  king  of 
Assyria . 

To  strengthen  their  hands]  in  i^  refers  to  material  support, 
and  that  sense  would  be  admissible  here.  Were  our  text  cor- 
rect that  meaning  would  be  required.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  last  clause  originally  read  for  the  worship  of  Yahweh  the  God 
of  Israel].  The  favour  of  the  Assyrian  king  then  consisted  of 
the  privilege  of  keeping  the  Passover,  for  which  very  little 
expenditure  was  necessary.  The  king's  grace  may  refer  to  a 
gift  of  lambs,  which  were  slain  at  the  feast,  or  to  the  privilege 
conferred  upon  the  sons  of  the  golah  in  allowing  them  to  re- 
turn to  Judah.  In  the  latter  case  the  king  would  naturally  be 
Cyrus. — For  the  work  of  the  house  of  God]  is  badly  supported  by 
the  Vrss.,  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  tenor  of  the  passage, 
which  is  concerned  with  the  keeping  of  festivals,  i.  e.,  the  wor- 
ship at  the  temple,  not  with  its  building. 

19.  iB'j?ii]  (&  IxotTjoov,  but  Esd.  uses  a  more  technical  word,  ri^k-^a- 
gjj^BA  ^yayov'-. — nSun  ija]  is  suspicious,  for  the  Passover  was  slain  for 
•  the  sons  of  the  golah  (v.  2").  Esd.  has  ol  ulol  'Icjpa9)>.  tuv  ex,  xfj^  oe?%- 
HaXtoaias,  19  filil  Israel  transmigrationis,  3  Esd.  filii  Israel  aim  his  qui 
erant  ex  captivitate,  i.  c,  the  sons  of  Israel  together  with  those  who  had 
come  from  the  captivity.  Now  Esd.  cannot  be  rendered  "the  sons  of 
Israel  that  came  from  captivity,"  as  RV.;  the  T-iv  forbids  that,  for 
the  text  is  defective;  the  Latin  is  good.  3  Esd.  shows  two  distinct 
classes,  the  sons  of  Israel  and  the  sons  of  the  golah,  and  these  two 
classes  are  kept  distinct  in  this  whole  passage.  Now  the  original 
reading  must  have  been  "sons  of  Israel"  and  the  rest  is  a  correction 
from  MT.  As  so  often  happens  Esd.  has  preserved  the  original  text 
with  a  dup.  derived  from  Heb. — 20*.  Esd.   has  a  striking  text,  Bxe 


EZRA   4^-6  155 

•^YvfoOrjaav  ol  Up£l<;  xal  o\  Aeuelxott  a;jLa  y.al  xivTSs  o't  u'tol  ttjc;  ac^- 
(iaXwatai?  OTt  [oux.^]  ■fjyviffGYjffav  ott  ot  Aeuetxat  ajia  •rcivTsi;  TiyviaOTjaczv,  3 
Esd.  qiiando  sandificali  sunt  sacerdotes  et  Levitae.  Omnes  filii  captivitatis 
non  sunt  simul  sanctificati,  quia  Levitae  omnes  simul  sandificati  sunt. 
The  reading  o-ct  in  ^^  is  senseless,  and  ^  supported  by  3  Esd.  is  correct. 
Some  parties  were  clean  and  others  not.  Now  the  subj.  of  lanirii  can 
only  be  the  Lev.  We  can  get  good  sense  for  a  part  of  the  v.,  i.  e.,  hut 
the  Lev.  to  a  man  were  all  of  them  dean,  and  they  sacrificed  the  passover 
for  all  the  sons  of  the  golah,  for  their  brethren  the  pr.  and  for  themselves. 
In  this  part  Esd.  and  MT.  agree.  The  preceding  part  is  meaningless 
as  it  stands  in  both  texts.  Esd.  shows  corrections  from  the  Heb.  in 
the  repeated  clause  ot  A.  oi[i<x  xal  -jcavxei;.  Omitting  that  and  putting 
the  remainder  back  into  Heb.,  we  have  a  good  text:  D''jn3n  nnan  n'?  ij 
n'?ijn  <jai.  It  may  be  that  we  should  go  further.  When  the  Chr.  drop- 
ped the  negative  to  get  rid  of  the  intolerable  implication  of  the  pas- 
sage, he  may  have  inserted  "pr.";  in  that  case  the  Esd.  text  is  cor- 
rect from  oc  u\oi,  the  preceding  being  added  from  MT.  The  antithesis 
is  then  between  the  sons  of  Israel,  v.  ",  and  the  sons  of  golah,  v.  20. — 
21  is  unintelligible;  there  is  no  obj.  for  iSdnii;  "sons  of  Israel"  and 
"sons  of  the  golah"  are  identified;  there  is  a  third  class  otherwise  un- 
known in  this  section  "and  all  who  had  separated,"  etc.,  and  there 
is  no  antecedent  for  the  pron.  in  dhSn.  (S  has  an  obj.,  to  icaffx^t,  in  place 
of  D'^cn,  but  axb  ifiq  axotxeafaq  is  disconnected  (ol  e^eXOdvxe?  i%6^). 
(^  has  slq  axaOapata?  for  nNDBD.  Esd.  follows  MT.  exc.  that  it  has 
xtivTsi;  for  S31  and  lacks  anSx  and  ^Nnti'i  ihSn.  Sense  may  be  obtained 
by  transposition  so  as  to  rd.  y\iir\  .  .  .  Snjjn  '■'^  Ssnu'i  ij3  noon  iS^xm 
nSuHD  D^^'^ni.  It  is  better  with  Esd.  to  drop  hasz'^  inSwX  .  .  .  anSx. — 
22.  In  (S^  ^^^''  is  lacking;  in  (B'^  it  is  found  here  and  with  3Dn.  Esd- 
has  TTjv  ^ouXiQv  for  3'7  =  px>',  and  lacks  D''n':'Nn  pi^  or  rather  has  xupt'ou 
instead. — nini  .  .  .  nnntio]  appears  in  Esd.  as  evav-ut  xupt'ou'-,  eijq3pat6[ji.£vot 
I'vavTt  xupt'ou^'^.  "House  of  God"  was  added  by  the  Chr.  when  he 
attached  the  passage  to  the  temple  story.  Esd.  gives  better  sense,  for 
Yahiveh  made  them  rejoice  and  turned  is  awkward.  We  should  rd. 
therefore  S^na-i  inSx  nin>  nsxSca  .  .  .  iicn  iSd  nx>'  aon  ■<d  n^r\■>  >:oh  a^n'cv. 

EZR.  4^ -^      THE    COMPLAINT    TO    XERXES. 

This  is  a  fragment  describing  an  event  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes  (485- 
464),  and  the  only  passage  we  have  from  his  period.  It  is  given  dif- 
ferent connections  in  MT.  and  Esd.  In  the  latter  the  name  of  Xerxes 
does  not  occur;  in  fact,  the  only  part  of  v.  ^  preserved  in  that  text  is 
against  the  inhabitants  ofJudah  and  Jerus.,  and  that  is  imbedded  in  the 
letter  to  Art.  The  section  is  usually  divided,  vv.  <  '•  being  connected 
with  vv. '-'  and  v. «  made  a  section  all  by  itself.  It  has  been  shown 
above  that  this  passage  did  not  come  from  the  same  hand  as  vv.  '-=,  and 


156  EZRA-NEHEMI  AH 

vv.  •»  f-  give  a  suitable  setting  for  v.  ^  As  the  text  stands  the  arrange- 
ment in  Esd.  is  the  only  logical  one,  for  the  dates  of  Cy.  and  Dar.  in 
V.  5b  lead  up  to  $'.  It  is  clear  that  these  dates  are  later  glosses.  The 
connection  of  "all  the  days  of  Cy."  shows  that  it  is  interpolated.  As 
it  stands  it  is  connected  with  "hiring  counsellors,"  but  manifestly  the 
enemy  would  not  be  engaged  in  hiring  counsellors  during  a  whole  reign — 
to  ignore  the  intervening  period  of  Camb3'ses.  As  the  editor  supposed 
the  events  narrated  in  3^-4^  to  have  happened  in  the  time  of  Cy.,  it 
would  be  natural  for  him  to  add  this  date.  "Unto  the  reign  of  Dar." 
is  easily  explained  as  a  duplication  from  4^*,  which  v.  is  substantially 
a  repetition  of  the  passage  before  us.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
in  the  original  text  preserved  in  Esd.,  4=  was  directly  followed  by  4-*. 

The  troubling  of  the  Jews  referred  to  here  of  course  really  took  place 
in  the  reign  of  Dar.,  since  the  complaint  was  lodged  with  Xerxes  in 
the  beginning  of  his  reign.  The  key  to  the  situation  hes  in  the  word 
"build,"  v.  ^  That  could  not  refer  to  the  building  of  the  temple,  for 
we  have  three  accounts  of  that  performance  (3 '-4^  5/.,  Hg.  and  Zc), 
in  no  one  of  which  is  there  a  hint  of  even  an  attempt  to  check  the  build- 
ing. Even  with  the  poor  and  few  people  for  the  task,  the  work  was 
apparently  done  in  a  shorter  time  than  Solomon  took  with  all  of  his 
resources.  The  building  could  only  refer  then  to  the  building  of 
houses  in  Jerus.  or  of  the  walls  or  both.  Now  houses  in  the  city  and 
walls  around  it  would  naturally  be  the  next  step  after  the  erection  of 
the  temple;  for  the  temple  standing  alone  would  be  subject  to  raids  for 
plunder  and  desecration.  Ne.  shows  that  any  preceding  attempts  to 
put  up  either  houses  or  walls  had  failed.  The  complaint  accomplished 
its  purpose. 

As  Dar.  was  favourably  disposed  toward  the  Jews,  there  would  be 
no  use  in  appealing  to  him.  Consequently  the  enemies  had  to  fall 
back  upon  themselves,  and  do  what  they  could  to  impede  the  prog- 
ress of  those  Jews  who  were  bravely  struggling  to  restore  Zion.  A  new 
king  always  raises  new  hopes.  When  Xerxes  succeeded  to  the  throne, 
there  might  be  a  chance  of  turning  him  against  the  rising  people  of 
Palestine.  The  advent  of  a  new  king  was  a  favourite  time  for  the 
rebellion  of  subject  peoples.  The  freshly  crowned  monarch  must  be 
on  the  alert  for  uprisings,  and  he  would  naturally  be  suspicious.  Upon 
the  accession  of  Xerxes,  therefore,  the  counsellors,  Bishlam,  Mithredates, 
and  Tabeel,  who  had  been  employed  by  the  enemy,  wrote  their  charges 
against  the  Jews. 

What  they  wrote  and  what  the  result  of  their  letter  was  we  do  not 
know,  for  that  part  of  the  narrative  has  been  lost.  We  may,  however^ 
draw  a  pretty  safe  inference.  In  our  books  we  have  stories  which  show 
the  favourable  attitude  of  Pers.  kings  toward  the  Jews;  Cy.  Dar. 
Art.  and  Art.  11,  each  one  in  his  way,  furthered  the  desires  of  these 
people.     We  have  nothing  from  the  long  reign  of  Xerxes.     Before  him 


EZRA   4^-6  157 

a  good  beginning  had  been  made,  but  after  his  time  the  situation  de- 
scribed in  Ne.  i  /.  indicates  that  all  the  work  of  the  Jews  had  been 
undone,  save  in  the  fact  that  the  temple  had  not  been  destroyed.  It 
is  evident  then  that  Xerxes  showed  no  favour  to  the  Jews,  and  that 
their  hostile  neighbours  had  a  free  hand  to  work  their  own  will. 

The  term  "people  of  Judah"  in  v.  ■•  would  not  naturally  be  applied 
to  a  body  of  exiles  who  had  Just  returned.  The  words  imply  a  people 
settled  for  some  time  in  the  land,  and  hence  a  later  date  than  that  of 
Cy.  is  necessary. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  proposed  by  many  to  change  the  name  Xerxes 
to  Cambyses  (e.  g.,  KATJ-  '^^),  but  that  is  an  attempt  to  support  a 
chron.  system  in  the  present  arrangement  of  our  books  which  on  all 
grounds  is  impossible.  Even  if  this  name  were  disposed  of,  we  still  have 
the  passage  vv.  '-==,  and  would  have  to  dispose  of  Art.  as  well  as  Xerxes. 

4.  The  people  of  the  land]  occurs  in  the  contemporary  proph- 
ets, in  Zc.  7*  as  a  term  for  the  laity,  in  Hg.  2*  as  equivalent  to 
the  rest  of  the  people  named  in  2-,  i.  e.,  all  others  than  Jeshua 
and  Zerubbabel.  In  our  books  this  term  occurs  nowhere  else, 
and  as  Esd.  reads  "peoples,"  the  text  must  be  corrected  ac- 
cordingly. 

We  have  this  expression  "peoples  of  the  land"  in  10=  "  Ne.  9'''  lo"-  32 
and  "peoples  of  the  lands"  in  3^  gi-  2.  n  Ne.  g^*-  30  1029.  In  Ezr.  lo^-  n 
Ne  10"  "peoples  of  the  land"  describes  the  peoples  from  which  the 
foreign  wives  had  come;  there  the  mng.  is  manifestly  the  non-Israelite 
nations  dwelling  in  Judah  or  its  immediate  neighbourhood.  "Peoples 
of  the  lands"  has  the  same  sense  in  Ezr.  g^- -■  ^\  "peoples  of  these 
abominations"  (9")  being  used  synonymously,  but  the  emph.  here  is 
on  the  difference  of  religion  rather  than  of  race.  In  Ne.  9^"  the  term 
refers  to  the  As.  and  Bab.,  therefore  the  foreign  people  distant  from 
Judah.  In  Ne.  10'=  it  is  rendered  "traders"  in  BDB.,  but  the  real  mng. 
is  country  people  as  distinguished  from  those  in  Jerus.  In  Ne.  g^*  the 
word  for  peoples  has  an  unusual  form  ('DDy),  but  as  inZc.  7^,  it  means 
the  people  as  distinguished  from  the  king;  the  reference,  however,  is  to 
foreigners.  These  are  all  the  cases  in  our  books,  and  it  is  apparent 
therefore  that  the  phrase  refers  to  foreigners,  and  while  originally 
"peoples  of  the  land"  was  distinguished  from  the  others  as  mng.  for- 
eigners near  by,  the  distinction  is  lost  as  the  texts  stand.  The  refer- 
ence here  is  very  prob.  to  the  Sam. 

Were  weakening  the  hands].  Cf.  "their  hands  will  drop  from 
the  work"  (on  the  walls),  Ne.  6^    The  phrase  usually  means 


158  EZR  A-NEHEMIAH 

to  discourage,  but  literally  it  would  be  making  the  hands  drop, 
and  so  stopping  whatever  the  people  of  Judah  were  doing.  In 
view  of  the  following  clause,  ''disheartening"  is  the  better 
sense. — Troubling  them  in  building].  The  history  of  the  efforts 
of  the  foreigners  to  stop  Nehemiah's  work  is  the  best  commen- 
tary on  the  passage.  The  meaning  is  that  the  people  of  the 
land  interfered  with  the  Jews,  putting  every  possible  obstacle 
in  their  way.  There  may  have  been  actual  assaults  made  upon 
them  as  well.  What  the  people  of  Judah  were  building  is  not 
stated,  but  it  must  have  been  either  the  city  walls  or  houses 
{v.  s.).  Esd.  has  a  somewhat  different  account:  The  nations  of 
the  land,  lying  down  upon  (or  sending  a  message  to)  those  in 
Judea  and  besieging  thetn,  prevented  the  building.  This  hostility 
is  still  more  emphasised  in  3  Esd.,  where  an  ambush  is  de- 
scribed {v.  i.). — 5.  Hiring  counsellors  against  them].  Cf.  Ne. 
6^2  f-,  "counsellors  of  the  king,"  f^  8^^  but  here  BDB.  gives  the 
meaning  "agents."  The  counsellors  w^ere  not  employed  for 
advice,  but  to  represent  them  in  their  complaint  to  Xerxes. 
To  make  an  appeal  like  this  effective,  it  would  have  to  be  sup- 
ported by  names  that  would  carry  weight  with  the  king.  It  is 
certain  that  the  agents  were  Bishlam,  Mithredates,  and  Tabeel 
{v.  on  "--^),  and  they  may  have  been  Persian  officers,  to  whose 
report  Xerxes  would  give  heed,  and  who  knew  how  to  draw  up 
a  suitable  document. — To  defeat  their  purpose].  Their  purpose 
was  the  rebuilding  of  the  city.  It  would  appear  that  in  spite 
of  the  efforts  of  the  enemy  the  work  had  continued,  though 
with  diminished  success.  Despairing  of  completely  stopping  the 
progress  by  their  own  efforts,  they  now  prepare  to  secure  a  re- 
straining decree  from  the  Persian  king. — All  the  days  of  Cyrus] 
is  a  harmonising  gloss  added  here  when  this  passage  was  placed 
in  a  false  connection  {v.  s.) ;  similarly  until  the  reign  of  Darius  is 
carried  back  from  v.^^  The  Esd.  text  shows  plainly  how  this 
was  done. — 6.  In  the  reign  of  Xerxes],  the  only  mention  of 
this  king  in  our  books,  but  he  is  named  often  in  Est. — In  the 
beginning  of  his  reign],  that  is,  immediately  upon  his  acces- 
sion (485  B.C.),  when  an  accusation  of  rebellion  would  be  most 
effective. — Wrote]  in  our  text  has  no  subject.    The  implied  sub- 


EZRA  4^-«  159 

ject  is  ''the  people  of  the  land"  in  v.  "*,  but  to  say  nothing  of 
the  distance  and  change  of  construction,  a  multitude  could  not 
well  be  the  author  of  a  letter.  Proper  textual  criticism  shows 
that  Bishlam,  Mithredates,  and  Tabeel  should  be  transposed 
from  V. ''  to  serve  as  the  subject  of  this  verb. — Accusation],  in 
Esd.  letter,  and  probably  that  is  correct;  for  the  Hebrew  verb 
"write"  is  not  used  with  a  figurative  subject.  "Accusation" 
would  mean  a  letter  containing  an  accusation. 

The  abrupt  end  is  what  we  may  expect  in  any  fragmentary  piece  the 
original  form  of  which  has  been  lost  by  editing  to  fit  a  new  situation. 
That  abruptness  of  termination  is,  however,  a  characteristic  of  our 
books. 

4.  T^NH  Dj?]  Esd.  TaSe  e'Gvtj  t^?  y^?,  3  Esd.  gentes  terrae,  rd.  "'Dj?  as  in 
other  places. — ni  didid]  only  case  of  Pi.  in  this  connection.  Qal  is 
used  several  times  with  ti  as  subj.,  e.  g.,  2  S.  4",  where  we  have  also  Snj. 
Esd.  gives  us  ii^iy-oiiuliixsvoL^^  {incwnbentes ,  3  Esd.)  =  ^''?,  Dt.  21^'  = 
332',  I  K.  3I',  hardly  a  suitable  sense  here;  sTcixotvuvoOvra^  occurs 
only  in  Sirach  26^  4  Mac.  4^.  This  gives  quite  a  different  sense,  sent 
a  communication  to  those  in  Jiidah,  possibly  ordering  them  to  stop  the 
work. — a^nS^D]  trouble,  QT.U-hr\2'a,  frighten.  <Sevex63ti;ov  (=  oSn  in  Ju. 
522)  supports  Kt.  Esd.  has  xoXtopxouvxs?  elpyov.  The  first  word  often 
represents  anS,  and  this  text  apparently  rd.  a'lDnSj.  Etpyov  stands  for 
some  vb.  concealed  in  aniN.  As  Esd.  has  dxsxwXuaav  for  "prevent" 
in  5"  and  2",  it  appears  that  we  have  two  sources  woven  together 
here.  3  Esd.  has  a  further  elaboration,  et  levantcs  opus  adificationis 
et  insidias  et  populos  addiicentes  prohibebant  eos  adificare,  "and  impair 
the  work  of  building  and  bringing  an  ambush  and  peoples  prevented 
them  from  building."  This  is  very  like  Neh.'s  troubles. — 5.  anDOf] 
an  error  in  sibilants;  the  correct  form  is  anoB'.  The  text  of  Esd.  is 
radically  different  in  this  v.:  xal  gouXd?  xal  SigpLaYwyouvTsq  (STjfxayw- 
Y^ac;^^)  xal  auffTdeaeti;  (sxtauaTaaetq^)  icotoupievoc  dtxexcoXuaav  ToCi  dxoxs- 
XeaS^vat  T-fjv  oJxoSotiTjv  (tou  o?x,oSotJL^ffai  xal  gxt-reXeaO^vat  ttjv  ofxoBotXTjv'-) 
xavTa  tbv  xp6vov  xr\c,  'Cw^<;  toO  paaiXlox;  Kupou.  There  is  added  xotl  e"px- 
e-rjaav  Tfj?  otxoSo(ji.^<;  ett)  Suo  Ioj?  xiji;  AapeCou  ^otctXeiac,  but  that  is  a 
translation  of  v.-\  so  that  the  clause  "until  the  reign  of  Dar."  of 
MT.  is  lacking  in  Esd.,  and  correctly,  for  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
this  section.  The  above  contains  more  than  we  have  in  MT.,  but  it 
appears  to  be  chiefly  the  work  of  R.,  who  wanted  to  emphasise  the 
good  ground  for  the  cessation  of  the  work  on  the  temple.  Yet  he  did 
not  venture  to  insert  any  word  that  necessarily  refers  to  the  temple. 
The  difference  from  MT.  is  so  great  that  the  text  can  hardly  be  a 


l6o  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

translation  at  all.  Indeed,  in  the  whole  passage  {*-')  Esd.  shows  that 
the  material  has  been  worked  over  perhaps  by  several  hands.  The  pas- 
sage may  be  translated,  and  using  plans  and  demagoguery  and  tumults 
they  prevented  the  building  from  completion  all  the  days  that  Cy.  lived. 
The  following  clause,  they  hindered  the  building  for  two  years,  is  a  dup. 
— 6.  njBB']  does  not  occur  elsw.  (S^  lacks  the  word,  ■*  has  eictaToX-^v, 
while  ^  has  a  dup.,  Izta.  r.al  evovxfuatv.  Other  forms  of  the  root  are 
common. 

EZR.  4^-2^*  =  ESD.   2i«-30.      THE    ARTAXERXES    LETTERS. 

The  material  in  this  passage  covers  two  letters,  that  of  Rehum, 
Shimshai,  and  their  associates  to  Artaxerxes,  and  that  of  the 
king  in  reply;  an  introduction  to  each  letter;  and  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  execution  of  the  king's  decree.  The  section  has  been 
the  subject  of  much  discussion,  for  it  presents  difficulties  to  an 
tmusual  degree.     Some  of  these  will  be  considered  here. 

(i)  Contrary  to  the  general  impression,  the  whole  passage  exc.  'i» 
is  in  Aram.  It  is  usually  said  that  v. '  is  the  Heb.  intr.  to  the  Aram, 
letters,  a  conclusion  due  in  part  to  an  inadequate  criticism  of  the  text. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  that  v. '"  is  a  part  of  the  warp  and  woof  of 
the  intr.  to  the  first  letter,  an  intr.  mixed  all  through  vv. '-",  and  which 
I  have  fortunately  been  able  to  disentangle  {v.  i.).  The  v.  can  be  rd. 
as  Aram,  as  well  as  Heb.  The  word  inuo  is,  in  fact,  an  Aram,  word, 
and  the  passage  can  only  be  forced  into  Heb.  by  assuming  a  loan-word. 
The  mistake  was  originally  made  by  the  Massorites,  and  has  been 
perpetuated  ever  since.  V.  ">  is  Heb.,  but  at  most  it  is  an  editor's  note; 
and  it  is  certainly  out  of  place.  It  has  never  been  understood,  but  it 
clearly  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  which 
follows.  It  may  be  only  some  copyists'  notes  {v.  i.).  (2)  The  letters 
are  placed  in  different  chron.  situations  in  the  two  editions  which 
have  come  down  to  us.  In  MT.  the  passage  stands  between  the  Heb. 
and  Aram,  stories  of  the  temple-building,  that  is,  in  the  reign  of  Dar., 
an  obvious  absurdity.  In  Esd.  the  passage  comes  directly  after  Ezr. 
I,  between  the  reigns  of  Cy.  and  Dar.  This  position  was  not  that  of 
the  original  text  of  Esd.,  but  was  due  to  a  later  editor.  In  the  Esd. 
text  of  w.  '-2<  there  are  two  references  to  the  building  of  the  temple, 
both  in  the  letter  of  complaint,  neither  being  in  the  Aram,  text  (Esd. 
2i7-  so  =  Ezr.  4'2-  ").  Now  those  references  to  the  temple  must  have 
been  added  to  the  text  after  it  was  placed  in  the  position  it  has  in  MT. 
In  the  Esd.  text  the  beginning  of  the  building  operations  of  the  tem- 
ple follows  this  passage  {i.  e.,  5*"^).  The  references  to  the  temple- 
building  are  therefore  impossible  in  an  earlier  section.    If  these  references 


EZRA   4'--<»  l6l 

had  becu  in  the  original  text,  they  surely  would  not  have  been  over- 
looked by  the  Chr.,  who  believed  that  this  passage  explained  the  delay 
in  building  the  temple.  The  section  must  have  been  transposed  in 
the  Esd.  text  in  an  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  obvious  absurdity  of 
placing  the  Art.  letters  in  the  midst  of  the  reign  of  Dar.  That  would 
be  all  the  more  necessary,  since  the  Esd.  text  makes  it  clear  that  3^4' 
of  MT.  do  belong  to  the  time  of  Dar.,  a  fact  disguised  in  MT.  by  the 
aid  of  numerous  textual  changes. 

It  seems  possible  to  go  a  step  further  and  attempt  to  account  for  the 
fact  that  there  are  no  references  to  the  temple  in  the  Aram,  version  of 
the  letter.  At  all  events,  a  simple  explanation  may  be  proposed.  In 
the  original  text  of  Ezr.-Ne.  this  passage  stood  where  it  belongs, 
immediately  preceding  Ne.  1.  The  passage  was  transposed  in  Esd., 
which  has  nothing  of  Neh.'s  work  at  all,  and  was  edited  to  fit  its  new 
place.  Then  in  MT.  it  was  also  separated  from  its  context  by  the 
insertion  of  c.  5-10,  but  without  the  textual  changes.  Later,  to  get 
rid  of  the  problem  of  chronology,  it  was  again  pushed  back  in  the  Esd. 
text  by  an  editor  who  was  certainly,  and  perhaps  pardonably,  ignorant 
of  the  true  order  of  succession  of  the  Pers.  kings. 

(3)  The  passage  is  dated  in  the  time  of  Art.,  presumably  Art.  I 
(464-424).  This  date  is  inconsistent  with  the  position  of  the  passage 
in  either  text.  Therefore  many  scholars  have  supposed  that  the  name 
of  the  king  is  wrong,  and  that  we  should  substitute  Cambyses  for  Art. 
Cambyses  reigned  529-522,  between  the  reigns  of  Cy.  and  Dar.  That 
substitution  would  make  the  Esd.  text  chronologically  consistent.  But 
we  have  seen  that  the  position  of  the  passage  in  that  version  was  not 
original,  and  consequently  the  gain  is  nothing.  The  substitution  does 
not  help  out  the  version  in  MT.;  for  here  we  have  the  sequence  of 
kings,  Cy.  Dar.  Xerxes,  Art.  Dar.  (4^ ff),  thus  placing  Art.  too  early. 
If  Cambyses  is  assumed,  he  becomes  as  much  too  late  in  this  scheme 
as  Art.  is  too  early.  With  better  success  we  might  substitute  the  name 
Xerxes.  We  could  then  interpret  v.  ^  as  a  Heb.  beginning  of  the  matter 
in  vv. '-2<».  The  chron.  sequence  is  then  not  so  bad,  for  while  c.  5/. 
does  belong  to  the  reign  of  Dar.,  we  might  suppose  that  the  Aram, 
account  of  the  temple-building  story  had  been  added  to  this  Aram, 
section  without  regard  to  chron.  order.  Then  it  is  a  singular  fact  that 
in  the  book  of  Est.  the  Pers.  king  Xerxes  appears  in  05  as  Art.;  if  the 
same  mistake  had  been  made  here,  the  error  in  (S  might  have  crept 
back  into  the  Aram.  Finally  that  substitution  would  rid  us  of  the 
serious  difficulty  that  Art.  authorised  Neh.  to  do  the  very  thing  forbid- 
den in  this  edict  (v.  Intr.). 

Alluring  as  this  hypothesis  is,  it  is  certainly  unnecessary.  After  all, 
it  scarcely  relieves  us  of  any  real  difficulties,  for  as  the  passage  is  in  the 
wrong  place,  to  remove  it  one  reign  further  along  is  no  strain.  Fur- 
ther, the  change,  as  shown  below,  creates  a  difficulty  of  its  own. 


1 62  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

In  its  original  form  the  letter  to  the  Pers.  king  charges  that  the  Jews 
are  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerus.,  and  erecting  houses  in  it.  That 
much  we  may  gather  in  spite  of  the  corrupt  and  obscure  text.  There 
is  not  a  word  about  the  temple;  indeed,  it  is  excluded;  for  the  complain- 
ants urge  that  if  the  Jews  finish  their  undertaking,  the  city  will  be  in 
a  position  to  rebel  against  the  king  of  Pers.  The  restoration  of  the 
temple  as  the  basis  of  that  charge  would  be  ridiculous.  Further,  the 
most  trustworthy  source  we  have  for  the  history  of  this  period  de- 
mands just  such  events  as  are  described  here.  Neh.  learns  with  sur- 
prise and  chagrin  that  Jerus.  is  lying  waste,  its  walls  are  thrown  down, 
and  its  gates  burned  (Ne.  i^  2^).  To  suppose  that  Neh.  refers  to  the 
destruction  in  587,  nearly  a  century  and  a  half  before  his  time,  is  absurd. 
The  reference  can  only  be  understood  of  some  recent  calamity.  Neh.'s 
audience  with  Art.  was  in  the  20th  year  of  his  reign.  Therefore  the 
events  narrated  as  occurring  "in  the  days  of  Art."  may  have  come  at 
any  time  in  the  first  twenty  years  of  his  reign.  But  if  we  transfer  the 
letters  to  Xerxes,  they  must  be  put  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign  (4O, 
i.  e.,  485,  or  forty  years  before  Neh.,  and  therefore  presenting  too  long 
an  interval  between  the  calamity  and  the  report  brought  to  Neh. 

There  is  then  the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  Art.  retracted  his  own 
words  in  giving  Neh.  permission  to  rebuild  the  walls.  In  the  Aram, 
form  of  the  letter,  there  is  the  saving  clause  "until  a  decree  is  issued  by 
me."  Esd.  lacks  the  passage,  but  that  might  easily  be  due  to  its  un- 
fitness, as  the  letter  was  understood.  If  words  are  to  be  pressed  over- 
hard,  as  is  apt  to  be  the  case  in  dealing  with  Pers.  laws,  that  clause 
would  have  to  be  omitted,  or  the  temple  could  never  have  been  built, 
for  Art.,  in  spite  of  6'^  never  issued  a  decree  in  favour  of  building  the 
temple. 

We  cannot  rd.  the  story  in  Ne.  i-2«  without  seeing  that  Neh.  realised 
that  he  had  a  delicate  and  difficult  problem.  If  he  knew  of  the  king's 
letter,  vv. "  s-,  and  had  just  heard  how  ruthlessly  the  decree  to  stop 
the  work  had  been  carried  out,  we  can  well  understand  his  fear  and  per- 
plexity. Finally,  it  is  by  no  means  inconceivable  that  a  weak  mon- 
arch like  Art.  could  be  induced  to  do  almost  anything  by  a  court 
favourite. 

By  placing  the  section  just  before  Neh.  we  get  an  exceedingly  good 
connection.  In  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Art.,  perhaps  imder  the 
inspiration  of  the  patriot  Neh.,  a  large  body  of  exiles  had  gone  up  to 
Jerus.,  possibly  the  very  company  confused  with  Ezra's.  They  had 
the  purpose,  so  near  the  heart  of  Neh.,  of  rebuilding  Jerus.,  and  began 
to  execute  theproject.  The  jealous  Sam.,  rebuffed  by  the  Jews  years 
before,  realise  the  danger  to  their  supremacy,  and  write  a  letter  to  the 
king.  Neh.  being  at  court,  knows  of  the  complaint  and  the  tenor  of 
the  king's  reply.  After  the  Sam.  forces  had  made  havoc  of  the  Jews* 
work,  some  of  the  disheartened  colonists  returned  to  Pers.,  and  are 


EZRA  4"--^»  163 

brought  straight  to  the  royal  cup-bearer.  He  learns  now  that  the 
enemy  had  taken  advantage  of  the  edict  and  had  gone  far  beyond  its 
terms  in  their  passion  for  destruction. 

With  this  situation  clearly  in  mind,  we  can  comprehend  the  patriot's 
disappointment  and  sorrow.  We  can  further  understand  the  secrecy 
with  which  he  surrounds  his  own  enterprise,  and  the  constant  conflicts 
with  the  very  people  who  had  succeeded  once  before  in  breaking  down 
the  walls  of  Jerus. 

(4)  The  authenticity  of  the  letters  has  been  assumed  in  the  above 
discussion.  Any  other  theory  seems  to  me  untenable.  The  text  is 
in  places  very  bad,  esp.  in  the  intr.  and  in  the  complaint,  v.  '^  due 
doubtless  to  tampering  with  the  text  to  make  it  fit  a  false  position. 
But  the  main  purport  of  the  letters  can  be  ascertained  beyond  a  doubt, 
and  if  this  passage  were  lacking  we  should  be  obhged  to  assume, 
in  order  to  understand  Neh.,  just  such  an  occurrence  as  is  here  de- 
scribed. The  passage  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  Chr.  on  any  condi- 
tions; for  he  could  not  have  composed  a  passage  which  he  so  egregi- 
ously  misunderstood,  and  which  is  so  hopelessly  inappropriate  for  the 
purpose  for  which  he  would  have  invented  it.  Whatever  his  faults, 
and  they  were  many,  he  was  not  as  stupid  as  that.  Had  the  Chr. 
composed  the  passage,  he  would  almost  certainly  have  written  all  in 
Heb.  save  the  letters  themselves,  as  is  the  case  in  the  story  of  Ezra, 
whereas  the  whole  document  is  in  Aram.  Moreover,  the  passage  does 
contain  more  than  the  letters  themselves,  and  I  cannot  understand 
Torrey's  declaration  that  the  "Aram,  source  contains  nothing  but  these 
suspicious  documents"  (ES."-). 

Kost.  was  the  first  to  deny  the  historicity  of  the  passage,  admitting 
that  if  it  were  authentic  it  would  refer  to  Ezra's  golah  and  overthrow 
his  theor>'  that  Ezra  is  later  than  Neh.  The  points  raised  by  Kost. 
{Wied.^*  ^■),  with  some  comments  thereon,  follow: 

(i)  The  colonising  by  Asnappar  (Assurbanipal)  is  improbable.  But 
it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Asnappar  is  to  be  identified  with  Assur- 
banipal {v.  i.).  (2)  There  is  a  suspicious  similarity  between  this  cor- 
respondence and  that  of  c.  5  /.  The  agreement  is  rather  fanciful  and 
is  mostly  in  unimportant  matters.  Both  complaints  are  in  Aram.,  are 
aimed  at  the  Jews,  and  are  addressed  to  a  Pers.  king.  But  in  the  im- 
portant matters  there  is  great  divergence.  One  contains  a  grave  charge 
and  urges  action;  the  other  is  an  inquiry,  and  the  correspondents 
await  orders.  In  one  the  complaint  is  heeded  and  drastic  measures 
ordered;  in  the  other  the  Jews  are  upheld.  (3)  The  phrase  "in  the 
book  of  thy  father's  memoirs,"  v.  ",  could  not  apply  to  Bab.  inscrip- 
tions. This  argument  ignores  simple  textual  criticism,  the  Esd.  text 
reading  "in  the  library  of  thy  fathers,"  in  which  Bab.  inscriptions  may 
well  have  been  stored.  (4)  "The  mighty  kings"  of  v.  ="  admits  of 
no  satisfactory  explanation,  since  the  history  of  David  and  Solomon 


1 64  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

would  not  be  recorded  in  Bab.  annals.  But  the  phrase  could  apply 
just  as  well  to  later  kings  like  Hezekiah,  who  held  a  Bab.  vassal  as  a 
prisoner  and  who  bulks  large  in  the  inscriptions  of  Sennacherib,  (s) 
The  phrase  "until  a  command  is  given  by  me,"  v.  -^,  shows  a  knowledge 
of  Art.'s  later  consent  to  Neh.  Here  again  we  may  note  that  Esd. 
lacks  the  passage,  and  Kost.  is  certainly  wrong  in  his  assumption  that 
Art.  orders  the  destruction  of  the  walls.  Further,  we  may  well  ques- 
tion Kost.'s  inference.  The  king  might  easily  issue  a  conditional  de- 
cree. As  he  merely  orders  the  work  to  stop,  it  is  natural  to  assume 
that  some  further  investigation  was  intended.  (6)  The  impression 
made  by  Ne.  1-7^  is  that  Neh.  was  engaged  in  an  entirely  new  work, 
and  that  a  story  of  a  previous  attempt  to  rebuild  the  walls  is  incon- 
sistent. The  fact  is  that  Neh.  was  urged  to  his  task  by  learning  that 
the  walls  had  been  thrown  down  and  the  gates  burned.  (7)  The 
mocking  attitude  of  Sanb.  and  To.  is  inexplicable  if  the  walls  had  pre- 
viously been  carried  close  to  completion.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the 
Sam.  had  recently  destroyed  what  the  Jews  had  built,  they  would  have 
sufficient  ground  to  jeer  at  any  one  else  who  attempted  to  resume  the 
work.  The  fact  that  they  trust  to  their  own  devices,  and  do  not  ap- 
peal to  the  king,  indicates  that  they  regarded  their  task  as  easy.  (8) 
Ne.  21-*  is  silent  about  an  existing  order  to  destroy  the  walls,  Neh.  does 
not  ask  for  a  reversal  of  a  previous  decree,  and  the  king  only  considers 
the  loss  of  a  faithful  ser\'ant.  Strictly  speaking,  there  had  been  no 
order  to  destroy  the  walls.  Neh.  would  not  be  likely  to  provoke  oppo- 
sition by  reminding  the  king  of  his  former  action. 

Kost.  then  gives  his  ideas  as  to  the  origin  of  the  passage.  As  the 
first  golah  in  the  time  of  Cy.  had  attempted  to  rebuild  the  temple,  and 
were  hindered  by  the' Sam.,  so  the  walls  must  have  been  attempted 
before  the  20th  year  of  Art.  Therefore  the  Chr.  makes  the  golah  at- 
tack the  walls  after  the  completion  of  the  temple.  It  would  be  difficult 
to  frame  a  weaker  hypothesis.  The  golah  under  Cy.  did  not  attempt 
to  rebuild  the  temple  and  there  was  no  hindrance  from  the  Sam.  The 
Chr.  had  no  idea  that  this  passage  dealt  with  the  walls  of  the  city. 
He  incorporates  the  passage  on  the  theory  that  the  letters  referred  to 
the  building  of  the  temple.  It  is  easy  to  agree  with  Torrey  that 
"Kost.'s  methods  were  not  thoroughly  scientific,  and  his  conclusions, 
in  the  main,  were  of  little  value"  (ES."')- 

7-11.  The  occasion  of  the  letter  to  Artaxerxes  and  its  be- 
ginning.— 7.  In  the  days  of  Artaxerxes].  The  writer  evidently 
had  no  exact  knowledge  of  the  date  or  he  would  have  been 
more  specific. — The  rest  of  their  associates]  suggesting  an  official 
body  which  joined  in  the  complaint  whose  word  would  add 


EZRA   4'-24»  165 

weight  to  the  charge.  The  word  rendered  "associates"  occurs 
in  the  Eleph.  pap.,  where  the  meaning  is  determinable.  In  I,  l.^ 
we  find  "Jedaniah  and  his  associates,  the  priests  who  are  in 
Jeb."  The  word  is  used  like  "brother"  in  Hebrew  to  indicate 
those  in  the  same  official  class.  Sachau  limits  the  meaning 
needlessly  to  those  who  joined  in  the  letter,  but  the  word  covers 
all  the  priests  in  Jeb. — And  the  writing  of  the  letter  was  written 
in  Aramaic].  "Character"  added  by  RV.  is  wrong,  for  the 
reference  is  to  the  language,  not  to  the  script. — A  fid  translated 
into  Aramaic].  But  as  it  has  already  been  said  that  the  letter 
was  written  in  Aramaic,  the  statement  that  it  was  translated 
into  Aramaic  is  manifestly  impossible.  Marquart  proposed 
"Persian,"  the  letter  being  translated  into  the  native  speech 
of  the  king,  and  so  being  a  bilingual  document.  Mey.  substi- 
tutes Persian  for  the  first  Aramaic,  and  omitting  the  redundant 
"writing"  gets  "the  dispatch  was  written  in  Persian  and  trans- 
lated into  Aramaic."  Berth,  regards  the  second  Aramaic  as 
a  gloss;  it  is  lacking  in  (S.  The  phrase  is  a  copyist's  note,  and  is 
not  of  much  importance  (v.  i.). — Rehum]  is  a  good  Hebrew  name, 
and  occurs  frequently  in  Ezr.-Ne.  {v.  on  2^). — Commander]  is 
better  than  "chancellor,"  RV.  Arnold  proposes  "master  of 
the  decrees"  (JBL.  1912,2^).  Rehum  then  would  be  the  chief 
officer. — Shimshai  the  scribe]  w.  ^-  ^^-  '^  f-  The  name  usually  is 
traced  to  Iranian  (BDB.),  but  it  might  easily  be  Hebrew.  The 
accusers  of  the  Jews  in  this  case,  though  holding  presumably 
Persian  offices  in  Syria,  may  themselves  have  been  of  Hebrew 
stock.  In  that  case  they  certainly  would  not  have  written  in 
Persian.  The  words  are  a  gloss  due  to  the  confusion  of  the  text. 
— As  follows]  but  the  letter  does  not  begin  till  v."''. — 9.  Dinaites] 
or  "judges"  according  to  (H^,  so  Hoffmann,  Mar. — Apharsath- 
chites]  also  interpreted  as  "generals"  (BDB.). — Tarpelites]  or  an 
official  title  tabellarii  (Jensen) :  it  has  also  been  interpreted  as 
Iranian  and  equal  to  the  frequently  used  term  "beyond  the 
River"  (Syria). — Aphar sites].  Marquart  renders  "secretaries." 
— Archevites]  the  people  of  Erech  (Mey.  Ent.'^'^),  a  city  in  Bab- 
ylonia.— Babylonians]  only  occurrence  of  the  gentilic  form  in 
OT. — ShushanchUes]  the  people  of  Susa,  the  Elamite  capital. 


1 66  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

— Dehaviks].  Following  (S^  now  generally  interpreted  as  "that 
is,"  a  rendering  requiring  a  slight  emendation.  We  should 
then  have  "the  Susians,  that  is,  the  Elamites,"  people  of  the 
country  over  which  Cyrus  had  first  ruled. — And  the  rest  of  the 
peoples].  In  spite  of  the  above  rather  lengthy  list,  there  were 
other  nationalities  involved  in  the  hostility  toward  the  Jews. — 
Whom  the  great  and  famous  Asnappar  had  taken  captive].  That 
is,  all  these  peoples  had  been  brought  to  Samaria  from  other 
places,  referring  to  the  story  in  2  K.  17.  Asnappar  is  usually 
identified  with  Assurbanipal,  apparently  because  it  is  more  like 
his  name  than  any  other,  (I  offers  Shalmaneser  who  began 
the  siege  of  Samaria.  As  the  name  is  corrupt,  as  the  resemblance 
to  Assurbanipal  is  not  very  close,  and  as  there  is  no  evidence  of 
his  colonising  Samaria,  we  might  conjecture  Sargon,  who  con- 
quered Samaria  in  722  or  Esarhaddon  as  v.  ^ — In  the  city  of 
Samaria].  Better  with  (&  in  the  cities  of  Samaria,  since  all  these 
peoples  would  scarcely  reside  in  one  city. — And  the  rest  beyond 
the  River]  i.  e.,  other  peoples  of  the  country  west  of  the  Eu- 
phrates. The  term  "beyond  the  River"  is  used  in  this  period 
for  all  the  country  from  the  Euphrates  to  Egypt. — And  so  forth]. 
Usually  interpreted  as  equivalent  to  "and  others,"  and  so  "too 
tedious  to  mention."  But  Torrey  (JBL.  1897)  has  shown  that 
it  means  "and  now,"  the  preface  to  the  real  matter  of  the 
letter.  The  word  is  misplaced  in  our  text,  being  repeated  from 
the  end  of  v.  ". — 11.  This  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  which  they  sent 
unto  him]  obviously  an  editorial  note,  and  should  stand  between 
the  narrative  and  the  beginning  of  the  letter  proper,  as  shown 
below  in  the  reconstructed  text. — Thy  servants].  The  names 
have  been  transposed,  and  are  wanting  here,  so  that  as  the  text 
stands  the  complaint  was  anonymous. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  more  corrupt  text  than  vv. '-".  At 
first  sight  the  case  seems  quite  hopeless,  for  while  there  can  be  but  a 
single  letter,  there  are  two  sets  of  complainants,  and  there  are  three 
different  introductions.  The  whole  is  so  confused  in  MT.  that  we  seem 
balked  at  every  point.  We  may  easily  assume  that  preceding  the  let- 
ter proper  there  was  a  simple  and  straightforward  intr.,  stating  the  time 
of  writing,  the  complainants,  the  accused,  and  the  person  with  whom 
the  complaint  is  lodged.    The  text  of  Esd.  is  simple  and  straightfor- 


EZRA   4^-2*'*  167 

ward,  but  a  careful  examination  shows  that  even  that  does  not  have  the 
original  text.     It  does,  however,  afford  a  basis  for  reconstruction. 

The  letter  proper  begins  at  v.  "'=  with  the  complainants,  thy  servants, 
the  men  of  Ahar-Naharah.  Plainly  we  lack  something  here,  viz.,  the 
addressee  and  the  names  of  the  accusers.  Esd.  has  a  part  of  the  neces- 
sary material  beginning,  to  King  Art.  lord.  Then  after  ol  izalhic,  aou 
we  have  'Pa6u(ji,os  6  (Torrey  rightly  supplies  ypaipwv)  t«  xpoaxt'xxovTa 
xal  "^a^iWioc,  6  Ypa(J-[AaTeij<;  xal  ol  sxfXotTuot  t^<;  ^ouXfji;  auTwv  xal  (xp(- 
xat'-)  o\  Iv  xo-rXj)  Supt?  v-aX  <I>otv(xjj.  And  in  v.  "  we  find  in  the  ad- 
dress of  the  king's  reply  an  additional  clause,  o!5(,oijatv  Iv  Safjiapefij:. 
Combining  this  material  we  see  that  the  beginning  of  the  letter  then 
must  have  been:  n"»od  iB'Dt:'i  a>.'a-S;?3  mm  y^2y  jnx  ndSd  Nni^'S'nmNS 
mnj— 13;?  •i>s!i'i  rina>  n  nnpa  |''3''ni  n  |inni:3  -iNri.  If  now  we  turn  to 
MT.  here  reprinted  for  easy  inspection,  we  find  all  this,  as  will  appear 
by  noting  the  words  with  a  single  underline:  y^piyi  aya-Spj  pini  (8) 
-S}?3  Dim  piN  (9)  :NDjo  iSo'^D  NPtr'trnmN':'  dSb'ti'-Sj;  mn  nijwX  lan^  nidd 
N3-I  nijjDK  "iSjn  IT  N-inx  nxa'i  (10) :  ...  xijn  pnnuD  •\i^•^^  nidd  >'i;-cz'>  ovtD 
xmjN  ptfiD  nji  (11)  :  PjyjT  mnj— i^y  ni<iyi  ynaiy  m  ■t'-^pj  inn  jmm  N^ipii 
njyai  mnj-iaj?  B'js  T'^3j;  xjSd  s-ntya'nms  Sy  'mSy  inSa^  <■<.  It  is  a  sup- 
port to  our  reconstruction  to  note  that  ^  has  xpfxat,  3  Esd.  judices 
just  where  N"'J''T  occurs  in  v.  5;  i;.  i.  in  note  on  text.  Kupt'w,  which  is 
always  found  in  Esd.  with  Art.,  is  a  rendering  of  tn><  reading  ^nx. 
inn  anini  of  MT.  shows  a  modified  construction  to  fit  the  connection  as 
the  text  stands.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  we  find  this  beginning  of  the 
letter  in  two  sections  of  our  present  text  separated  by  the  clause  "and 
the  rest  of  the  peoples  whom  the  just  and  noble  Asnappar  took  captive," 
and  this  intervening  portion  is  plainly  an  explanation  of  "their  com- 
panions," or  "their  counsel,"  as  Esd.  has  it.  Thus  we  are  able  to  put 
together  the  passages  which  are  required  as  the  first  part  of  the  letter 
proper. 

If  now  we  take  the  sections  of  the  text  preceding  and  following  our 
extracted  passages  and  preface  the  date  from  v. ',  we  get  this  surprising 
result:  And  in  the  days  of  Art.  Rehnm  the  reporter  (or  commander)  and 
Shimshai  the  scribe  wrote  a  letter  against  Jems.,  (11)  and  this  is  a  copy  of 
the  letter  which  they  sent  to  him  to  Art.  the  king,  from  a  source  indicated 
above  by  double  underlining.  From  this  it  appears  that  we  have  now 
also  a  simple  and  straightforward  intr.  to  the  letter.  If  we  compare 
this  result  with  the  text  of  Esd.,  we  find:  (i)  Instead  of  "against  Jerus.," 
"against  [those  dwelling  in  Judah  and]  Jerus.,"  showing  an  addition 
(within  brackets),  and  that  exactly  what  we  find  in  v.  ^  in  the  letter  to 
Xerxes,  no  other  note  of  which  is  found  in  Esd.  (2)  The  complainants 
are  (BtjXeiaoi;  xal  MtOpaSdrTjs  r.<x\  TdplXXtoq  -/.otl)  'PctOutAO';  5tal  BsIXtsO- 
jjLOi;  Tf.7.\  HaneXXto?  6  Ypa[X[i.izTcij<;  (xal  6t  Xotxol  o\  xouTot?  auvTacaofjisvot) 
oixouvxec;  oe  £V  2a[xapet'(j:  xal  lolq  dcXXoc?  xdicotc;.     Now  the  additions 


1 68  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

here  (within  parentheses)  are  taken  from  v. ',  adding  three  names,  and 
having  muj  ^ns'i,  which  belongs  to  the  intr.,  and  besides  is  Aram.,  not 
Heb.  The  last  clause,  dwelling  in  Samaria  and  the  other  places,  belongs 
to  the  letter  itself,  for  even  Esd.  lacks  it  in  its  proper  place.  To  this 
we  might  make  a  further  addition  from  v. '  and  so  get  as  the  original: 
And  in  the  days  of  Art.  Rehum  the  reporter  and  Shimshai  the  scribe  and 
the  rest  of  their  companions  wrote  a  letter  against  Jerus.  to  Art.  the  king 
of  Pers.  This  may  as  easily  be  all  Aram,  as  partly  one  language  and 
partly  the  other.  In  v. '  we  have  left  the  three  names,  Bishlam,  Mith- 
redates,  and  Tabeel.  These  names  have  no  place  in  the  letter  to  Art. 
For  as  they  stand  first  here  they  would  certainly  be  named  in  the 
reply;  but  they  do  not  recur  at  all.  Now  we  have  noted  that  nn3  in 
v.  8  lacks  a  subj.  The  three  names  are  manifestly  the  accusers  of  v. '. 
Bishlam,  Mithredates,  and  Tabeel  were  the  hired  agents  of  v.  ^.  Con- 
sidering the  vast  amount  of  transposition  which  has  taken  place,  the  tr. 
of  those  names  is  not  singular  (so  Torrey,  ES.'",  Mey.  Ent."). 

V.  "•  is  lacking  in  Esd.  and  is  easily  explained  as  a  marginal  note, 
or  an  explanation  by  the  Chr.  in  a  text  with  which  havoc  was  already 
made.  Its  place  would  be  more  appropriate  after  v. "'».  We  have  still 
to  account  for  the  passage,  vv.  g^-io^,  i.  e.,  the  list  of  names  and  the 
explanatory  note  and  the  rest  of  the  peoples  whom  the  great  and  noble 
Asnappar  took  captive.  This  clause  seems  to  be  a  late  gl.,  describing 
the  origin  of  the  Sam.  and  showing  marked  hostiUty  to  them.  The 
last  part  may  easily  be  taken  from  v.  2.  The  absence  of  the  whole  pas- 
sage in  Esd.  shows  that  it  was  prob.  later  than  that  translation;  for 
there  would  be  no  motive  for  its  omission. 

Further  ncjs  in  v.  ^,  to  which  there  is  nothing  corresponding  in  Esd., 
was  added  after  the  dislocation  was  made.  And  finally  mnj—ijy  cjs 
njj?3i  is  a  repetition  due  to  the  misplacing  of  inaj?.  cjx  is  a  mistake 
for  iNif.  njy3i  is  the  beginning  of  the  letter  and  could  not  occur  twice. 
"To  Art.  the  king  of  Pers."  is  superfluous,  rendered  necessary  only 
after  the  dislocation  was  made  to  explain  the  preceding  "to  him." 
Mey.  notes  the  use  of  hy  before  Art.,  used  in  the  sense  of  "unto,"  but 
that  is  good  Aram,  usage  (cf.  vv.  "■  'O-  The  confusion  is  not  so  great 
as  appears  from  the  difficulty  of  reconstruction.  The  principal  changes 
necessary  are  but  two:  the  tr.  of  the  three  names  from  v. '  to  v. «,  and 
the  tr.  of  "^  to  s^. 

V. «  did  not  appear  at  all  in  the  text  used  by  Esd.,  or  else  the  trans- 
lator omitted  it  because  he  saw  that  it  was  an  unintelligible  scrap. 
Torrey  holds  that  "v. «,  or  at  all  events  v.^^,  is  exactly  reproduced" 
(ES.»";  italics  mine).  But  his  reasons  are  not  convincing.  He  is 
obliged  to  assume  that  Art.  was  substituted  for  Xerxes,  whereas  Esd. 
begins  exactly  as  v. ',  showing  in  ■i^aiiya'^Bv  (though  ^  has  the  cor- 
rection xaT^ypcz'];ctv)  3n3  of  v. ',  not  upd  of  v. ".  This  is  followed  by 
otuty  =  'niS;'  of  v.  ".     ^:a\y  Torrey  finds  in  extoToXTjv  and  cites  (6^;  but 


EZRA   4'--^^  169 

<S^  has  sTctaxoXV  xal  svavtfwfftv,  an  obvious  and  characteristic  dup. 
Since  "letter"  appears  three  times  in  the  section,  vv.  '•  s-  ",  it  is  strange 
to  suppose  that  this  well-informed  translator  misconceived  the  mng. 
of  so  easy  a  word  as  njaa',  Esd.  has  uizo-^sy(!<x\i[i.ivy]v  before  exca-uoX-^v, 
which  Torrey  regards  as  representing  ndjj;  but  to  get  an  unnecessary 
adj.  the  translator  would  hardly  jump  from  v.  ^  to  v. ';  moreover,  ncjs 
is,  I  think,  a  late  interpolation.  The  words  stand  at  the  end  of  the 
passage  in  Esd. ;  had  "  Esd."  followed  v. « he  certainly  would  have  written 
xotTlYpatpav  t-?jv  extaxoXiQv.  This  position  and  the  order  of  the  words  in 
Gk.  suggest  that  they  may  stand  for  Nmj>J  ]ja'-\fl  in  v.  "  'Y%o-^e-(paiL[Liyqv 
occurs  only  in  the  Apocr.  On  p^r^D  :;.  i.  critical  note.  Finally,  xpovots 
may  represent  "'D',  but  never  elsw.  stands  for  nnsD. 

The  whole  section  vv. '-"  should  therefore  rd.  as  follows:  And  in 
the  days  of  Art.,  Rehum  the  reporter  and  Shimshai  the  scribe, 
and  the  rest  of  their  companions,  wrote  a  letter  against  Jems,  to 
Art.  the  king  of  Pers.  And  this  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  which  they 
sent  to  him:  To  Art.  the  king  our  lord.  Thy  servants  Rehum  the 
commander  and  Shimshai  the  scribe  and  the  rest  of  their  compan- 
ions who  dwell  in  the  cities  of  Sam.  and  in  the  remainder  of  the 
province  beyond  the  River.    And  now — 

It  must  be  noted  that  this  result  is  not  attained  by  the  free  play 
of  a  critic's  imagination,  but  it  is  entirely  obtained  from  a  text  which  as 
it  stands  is  utterly  unintelligible.  A  hteral  translation  of  MT.  will  be 
the  most  convincing  evidence  of  its  impossibility  for  the  reader  not 
versed  in  Aram.:  (7)  And  in  the  days  of  Art.  wrote  Bishlam,  Mithrcdates, 
Tabeel  and  the  rest  of  their  companions  unto  Art.  the  king  of  Pers.  and  the 
writing  of  the  letter  was  written  In  Aram,  and  interpreted  in  Aram.  (8) 
Rehum  the  commander  and  Shimshai  the  scribe  wrote  a  letter  against 
Jems,  to  Art.  the  king  as  follows.  (9)  Then  Rehum  the  reporter  and 
Shimshai  the  scribe  and  the  rest  of  their  companions,  the  Dlnaites  and  the 
Apharsathchites,  the  Tarpelltes,  the  Apharsites,  the  Archemles,  the  Baby- 
lonians, the  Shushanchltes,  the  Dehavltes,  the  Elamites,  (10)  and  the 
rest  of  the  nations  whom  the  great  and  noble  Asnappar  took  captive  atid 
caused  them  to  dwell  In  the  cities  of  Sam.  and  the  rest  of  the  province  beyond 
the  River.  And  now. — (11)  This  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  which  they  sent 
unto  him,  unto  Art.  the  king:  Thy  servants  the  men  of  the  province  beyond 
the  River.    A-nd  now — 

We  find  in  the  king's  reply  (v.  >')  the  names  of  the  men  who  sent  the 
charge.  Obviously  the  same  names  and  titles  must  have  stood  in  the 
accusing  letter.  It  is  a  justification  of  the  reconstruction  that  the  two 
lists  of  names  and  titles  agree  save  in  the  words  "cities  of,"  which  do 
not  occur  in  v.  »^ 

7.  ■'D>3]  in  V. «  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  ni3'?na,  showing  a  dif- 
ferent hand. — xns'B'nnnN]  an  Aramaised  form.    In  C5  only  ^  and  Esd. 


170  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

show  the  regular  Gk.  form  Apxa^ip^ou;  ''has  AsapBaOa,  *  Ap6aaaa9a. 
Bab.  form  is  Ar-iak-sai-su,  Achamenian,  UriaxSasa. — 2P2]  from  this 
sg.  and  the  sg.  sf.  {his  companions)  Mey.  argues  that  Rehum  was  the 
principal  instigator  of  the  letter.  But  a  sg.  vb.  with  more  than  one 
subj.  is  a  common  Semitic  usage. — inus]  does  not  occur  in  Heb.,  but  is 
frequent  in  the  Aram,  passages,  w.  '■  i'-  -'  5'  6^-  ".  It  is  contended  by 
Zimmem  that  its  As.  equivalent  kinattu  means  only  "house  servants" 
(Mar.");  but  here  it  means  "associates,"  as  in  the  Eleph.  pap.  The 
former  sense  would  be  unsuitable  unless  the  antecedent  of  "his"  were 
"Art.,"  a  possibility  in  this  v.,  but  not  in  v.  ". — 2no]  may  signify  "  char- 
acter of  writing"  in  Est.  i-^  3'-  8^  but  not  in  4^;  "mode  of  writing"  is 
a  rather  forced  sense;  the  natural  mng.  is  the  thing  written,  cf.  2'^.  C5 
renders  as  a  vb.,  sypaij^ev. — pncjn]  also  71';  the  Chr.  has  taken  this 
from  Aram.  vv. '^-ss^s,  Andreas  says  middle-Iranian  ptc.  pf.  pass. 
nihhist  =  scriptuni  (Mar.) ,  Hoffmann  {ZA.  \i,^-)  and  Str.  similarly.  Mey. 
holds  that  it  is  an  error  for  pariD,  Pers.  patigania,  "report"  or  "mes- 
sage." As  it  is  synonymous  with  ano,  he  contends  that  the  latter 
is  an  explanatory  gl.  of  the  Pers.  word.  CI  here  and  v. "  6  (popoXiyoc, 
which  in  Job  3'*  39'  =  e'JJ,  "oppressor,"  but  the  mng.  here,  as  appears 
from  Esd.  2^,  is  "tax-collector." — ama]  (5  -jfpacpi^v. — niD-iN^]  lacking  in 
(&,  while  DJinn  is  IppLTjveufjL^vigv,  so  agreeing  with  Ypa^iQV.  (&  gives,  there- 
fore: "The  tax-collector  wrote  a  letter  in  Aram,  and  it  was  trans- 
lated." We  must  either  change  one  "Aram."  to  "Pers.,"  the  reasons 
urged  for  which  are  not  very  convincing,  or  else  explain,  "the  letter 
was  written  in  Aram,  and  it  had  been  translated  into  Aram.,"  implying 
that  it  was  first  composed  in  some  other  language.  As  Aram,  was  the 
diplomatic  language  of  Pers.,  as  it  had  been  of  the  Bab.  and  Hebrews 
(2  K.  18=^),  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  letter  must  have  been  first  com- 
posed in  one  language  and  then  translated  into  another.  Mar.  after 
d  calls  i'T'DiN  a  gl.  We  might  solve  the  problem  by  reading  pariij  (11. 
on  V. ")  "copy,"  and  thus  have  the  letter  was  written  in  Aram,  and  there 
was  an  Aram,  copy,  the  copy  being  preserved  in  w.  "S-.  The  most 
prob.  solution  is  that  we  have  a  jargon  of  copyists'  marginal  notes  or 
directions,  c.  g.,  "write  the  letter,"  "write  in  Aram.,"  "translated  into 
Aram."  The  words  really  stand  at  the  head  of  the  Aram,  sections  of 
Ezr.,  and  may  have  been  directions  to  note  the  change  of  language,  a 
change  much  less  obvious  in  ^  than  in  MT. — 8.  mm].  Both  this  and 
iB'Dtt'  are  declared  to  be  Syrian  names  by  Mey.  (Ent.^*).  Rehum  was 
regarded  as  Pers.  by  Rawlinson,  while  Andreas  (Mar.'^)  regards  'B'DB' 
as  a  popular  etymological  adaptation  from  an  Iranian  ''CCtt'.  Thus  is 
it  determined  to  make  foreigners  of  two  good  Heb.  names. — aya-Spa] 
was  misunderstood  in  (B,  and  transliterated  in  various  ways,  pa8aTa[j.ev^, 
^aa\z(z[L^,  psXT£e(i^.  Esd.  BelXrepLOi;,  but  in  v. "  xa  icpoaxfirrovra,  to 
which  Torrey  rightly  adds  from  v. "  h  ypi^wv.  Andreas  explains  as  a 
translation  of  an  old  Pers.  title;  Mey.  says  it  is  applied  to  the  governor 


EZR7\   4'^-"^^  171 

of  a  small  Pers.  district.  It  seems  to  be  a  compound,  "master  of 
commands,"  a  sense  suitable  in  v.  =^  Torrey  renders  "reporter." — ■ 
K0J3]  from  J3  and  indefinite  nd  and  mng.  "as  follows"  (Str.  Mar.'O- 
It  is  lacking  in  05,  but  appears  in  Esd.  apparently  as  Hepawv. — 9.  piN]. 
Contrary  to  the  general  statement,  this  is  represented  in  C5  by  a  doub- 
let, TaSs  exptvev.  Str.  regards  as  gl.  Berth,  explains  it  as  a  doublet 
from  N'jn  in  v. ''.  In  this  corrupt  text  a  word  or  two  more  or  less 
makes  little  difference.  Vv.  '  '•  are  simply  a  more  amplified  repetition 
of  V. «  with  a  vb.  lacking.  Ci»  saw  the  defect  and  supplied  it  by  taking 
piN  in  two  senses  (n  T''i^')-  We  have  in  this  v.  a  list  of  nine  words 
or  names  which  have  sorely  perplexed  all  students.  It  is  useless  to 
print  all  the  desperate  conjectures  which  have  been  offered.  Passing 
by  the  first  four  names  for  the  present,  we  arrive  for  the  rest  at  pretty 
definite  results. — (n)"'01x].  Jensen,  Theol.  Liz.  1895,  proposed  to  iden- 
tify with  Gk.  apxot,  an  interpretation  generally  rejected  in  favour  of 
"people  of  Erech." — N'Saa]  is  clearly  "people  of  the  city  of  Bab." — 
Ni3jtt>Vi;'].  Zimmern  (KAT.^-  "=)  suggests  that  here  is  preserved  an  iden- 
tification of  the  Susian  god  SiiHnak  with  the  name  of  the  city.  Andreas, 
Mar.ss,  (cf.  De.  Par.'^'')  explains  ak  as  a  sf.;  so  Str. — yznz'l  is  the 
place-name. — vsini]  De.  (BD.^)  suggested  Du-u-a,  found  in  As.  con- 
tract tablets.  Virtually  all  scholars  now  agree  with  (&^  ol  etfft'v  =  x-in  n, 
"that  is,"  and  so  explaining  the  fact  that  the  Susians  were  Elamites. 
This  explanation  is  generally  regarded  as  a  gl.,  the  Elamites  being 
much  better  known  than  the  Susians  (Mey.  Mar.  et  al.).  We  have 
then  peoples  named  from  three  well-known  cities,  Erech,  Bab.,  and 
Susa.  To  revert  to  the  first  four  names,  we  have  an  unsolved  problem 
and  must  rest  content  with  conjecture. — nti]  Schrader  proposed  Da- 
ja-e-ni  (KAT.^-  2«).  De.  Din-sarru,  a  city  near  Susa  (BD.^).  <S'-  ot  xpt- 
Ta(,  and  so  virtually  all  scholars  rd.  n\:»i,  "the  judges,"  regarded  by 
Andreas  as  an  Aram,  translation  of  the  Pers.  databhar. — N'Spnal  made  a 
Latin  name  by  Jensen,  tabeUarii,  rejected  by  Andreas,  Mar.  et  al.  Pers. 
is  diligently  sought  in  this  document,  and  its  presence  would  be  nat- 
ural enough,  but  Latin  is  scarcely  admissible.  Andreas  is  quite  sure 
that  we  should  point  x;';:dto  and  find  in  the  word  some  unknown  of- 
ficial title  (so  Mey.^").  Hoffmann  explains  from  Pers.  taraparda,  "the 
provinces  beyond  the  River." — N'DPDnDX,  k^dibn,  and  N''3DnflN]  56  are 
much  alike,  and  may  justly  be  regarded  as  variants.  De.  (DB.'":)  sug- 
gested for  the  first  Partakka  or  Parlukka,  towns  in  Media  mentioned  by 
Esarhaddon;  in  the  second  he  saw  Parsua.  The  desperate  state  of  the 
case  is  shown  by  Mey.;  he  notes  that  the  root  in  all  three  is  did, 
"Persia."  k,  he  says,  may  be  prefixed  or  left  off  at  will  in  Iranian 
names;  n  in  the  first  is  a  corruption;  in  (i)  and  (3)  the  adj.  sf.  Ka 
appeared,  so  each  word  is  reduced  to  Pers.   {EnU''^);    thus  he  gets 

out  of  the  passage:  "the  Pers.  judges,  the  Pers. ,  the  Erechites, 

the  Bab.,  and  the  Susians."     Others  have  made  official  titles  of  all 


172  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  words:  "the  judges,  messengers,  tablet-writers,  scribes."  All 
these  identifications  reckon  with  the  single  words  and  forget  the 
context.  The  passage  shows  that  names  of  peoples  are  required  in 
each  case.  The  v.  begins  with  names  of  two  persons  and  their  oflSices: 
Rehum  the  commander  and  Shimshai  the  scribe  and  the  rest  of  their  asso- 
ciates: then  in  apposition  to  the  last  word  we  have  the  catalogue  of  the 
races  of  which  the  Sam.  were  composed,  which  cannot  be  a  mixture  of 
offices  and  peoples.  As  part  of  the  names  are  peoples,  they  must  all 
be.  So  V.  "  begins  and  the  rest  of  the  peoples.  That  we  cannot  identify 
them  merely  proves  a  corruption  of  the  text,  or  else  the  transplanting 
to  Sam.  of  peoples  from  places  as  yet  quite  unknown.  The  ransack- 
ing of  every  language  under  heaven  to  make  offices  out  of  this  jargon 
is  an  unwarranted  extravagance  of  criticism.  It  is  better  frankly  to 
confess  our  ignorance.  The  writer,  having  an  animus  against  the  Sam., 
may  have  sought  the  most  outlandish  names  he  knew. — 10.  liDJOx] 
almost  unanimously  identified  with  Assurbanipal  (668-626),  son  and 
successor  of  Esarhaddon  (v.  2).  Schrader  identified  with  Esarhaddon 
to  agree  with  v.-  {KATJ-^^^).  Mey.  and  others  who  are  searching 
dihgently  for  Pers.  influences  in  a  document  conceived  to  have  been 
written  by  Persians  sees  a  choice  bit  of  evidence  in  this  word;  he  sup- 
plies two  missing  letters,  iflJcaiiDx,  and  decides  that  the  final  i  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  Pers.  has  no  S  (£«/."  '•).  As  the  adj.  n3i  (Heb.  an) 
is  directly  applied  to  this  king,  it  would  appear  that  the  writer  took  out 
a  part  of  two  syllables  from  the  name  and  made  it  into  a  title.  The 
resemblance  is  the  only  ground  for  this  identification,  resting  therefore 
on  a  slender  basis  in  spite  of  its  general  acceptance.  (B^  has  2aX[i.a- 
vacraapT)?,  this  text  being  credited  with  correcting  the  name  on  the 
basis  of  2  K.  17,  a  critical  acumen  not  otherwise  apparent.  This  iden- 
tification is,  however,  impossible  chronologically;  Shalmaneser  was  too 
early.  Marquart  (Fund.^^)  saw  the  old  Heb.  pjiD.N,  Sargon.  We 
know  that  Sargon  colonised  Sam.;  ace.  to  v.  ^  Esarhaddon  did  like- 
wise. As  generally  understood  Assurbanipal  added  to  the  confusion 
of  tongues  and  religions.  The  name  is  corrupt  and  may  be  Sargon  or 
Esarhaddon  as  well  as  Assurbanipal. — ni^im  n3i].  Sieg.  says:  "Aram, 
translation  of  the  As.  royal  title  sarni  rabbit,"  but  we  lack  sarrii,  and  have 
another  adj.  which  has  no  parallel  in  the  As.  inscriptions. — T'i"'"]  occurs 
elsw.  only  in  Dn.  2",  where  it  means  difficult.  Here  it  is  equivalent  to 
Heb.  ip^  and  means  famous.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  why  Assurbanipal 
should  be  singled  out  for  praise  by  those  whom  he  had  carried  into 
exile. — ^^^p]  (S  has  pi.  xoXeacv,  the  most  suitable  text,  for  while  the 
chief  complainants  might  live  in  the  city  of  Sam.,  the  description  of 
peoples  covers  a  much  wider  territory.  If  MT.  is  right,  it  would  appear 
that  all  these  peoples  were  not  made  a  party  to  the  complaint.  The 
difficulty  may  be  avoided  by  reading  iNa'31. 

11.  ]K'-\o]  V. "  5«  and  as  loan-word  in  Heb.  7"  f-   We  may  compare 


EZRA   4^-24«  173 

^>Z'r^D  having  same  sense,  "copy,"  Est.  3'^  4'  8'^.  Mar.  says  both  words 
come  from  Pers.  In  Gk.  we  find  five  renderings:  (i)  b%oys'{p(X[i\i.i\ir]v, 
Esd.  2"^.  (2)  uxoxeffievov,  Esd.  7".  (3)  d(;vTt-]fpa90v,  Esd.  5'  (B^-.  (4)  Sta- 
xajrj,  <&^^.  is)  Staad^Tjutq,  CS'"^  in  5«  7". — •'niS>']  lacking  in  (B^  and  in 
ARV.  through  misunderstanding  the  corruption  of  the  text.  The  let- 
ter proper  begins  with  'mN-S;;. — 'y:n]  =  Heb.  b'un.  Esd.  has  o\  IxfXoi- 
•rcot  TT]?  pouX^?  auTwv.     This  shows  a  different  text. 

12-16.  The  charges  against  the  Jews. — 12.  In  Esd.  we  have 
a  slightly  different  and  more  deferential  address  than  MT. : 
be  it  known  to  our  lord  the  king,  the  same  difference  recurring 
in  V.  ".  The  next  clause  is  almost  always  translated  wrong;  it 
should  run  thus :  the  Jews,  who  have  come  up  from  thee  tmto  us, 
have  gone  to  Jerusalem,  a  rebellious  and  evil  city].  The  last 
words  are  in  apposition  to  Jerusalem,  and  not  the  object  of 
"build." 

We  note  that  the  Jews  here  denounced  are  recent  arrivals.  There 
must  therefore  have  been  an  extensive  migration  in  the  time  of  Art.,  of 
which  we  have  no  other  record.  From  their  undertakings  the  company 
must  have  been  a  large  one.  This  could  not  refer  to  Neh.'s  company, 
for  he  had  authority  from  the  king  to  do  the  very  things  which  are  here 
prohibited.  In  (&'■  we  find  "from  Cy."  instead  of  "from  thee,"  the 
editor  supposing  there  was  only  one  migration,  i.  e.,  that  in  the  reign 
of  Cy. 

Now  we  come  to  the  heart  of  the  matter,  a  description  of 
what  the  returned  Jews  were  doing  which  aroused  the  suspicions 
of  the  local  Persian  officials.  But  unfortunately  at  this  critical 
point  the  text  is  corrupt  and  obscure.  With  the  help  of  Esd. 
it  is  possible  to  get  a  fairly  good  sense:  They  are  building  it  [the 
city  or  some  unknown  object],  they  are  repairing  the  walls,  and 
they  have  completed  a  temple.  It  is  true  that  the  Jews  who  had 
come  from  Artaxerxes  had  not  built  a  temple,  but  the  fact  that 
a  temple  was  standing  would  be  an  incentive  for  the  rebuilding 
of  the  city  and  its  walls.  The  essence  of  the  charge  is  certainly 
the  statement  about  the  restoring  of  the  walls.  All  other  con- 
ditions could  be  ignored,  but  once  the  walls  were  about  the 
city,  Jerusalem  could  defy  all  the  peoples  in  the  Syrian  province. 
— 13.  They  ivill  not  pay  tribute,  custom  or  toll].     It  is  not  pos- 


174  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

sible  to  differentiate  these  words;  the  meaning  of  the  first  is 
assured,  any  kind  of  tribute  or  tax.  The  meaning  of  the  others 
is  mostly  guesswork.  Esd.  yields  better  sense  and  says  all  that 
is  necessary:  they  will  not  only  refuse  to  pay  tribute. — But  in  the 
end  it  will  damage  the  king]  is  a  very  doubtful  rendering  of  a 
very  obscure  passage.  Mey.  gets  "the  revenue  of  the  king 
will  suffer,"  a  good  enough  sense,  but  a  mere  repetition.  Esd. 
offers  the  best  solution  known  to  me :  but  also  they  will  stand  out 
against  even  kings.  What  is  apprehended  is  described  fully  and 
clearly  in  v.  ^'';  the  loss  to  the  Persian  empire  of  the  whole  Syrian 
province,  the  plaintiffs  greatly  exaggerating  the  power  of  the 
Jews  and  perverting  their  purpose. — 14.  Now  because  we  eat 
the  salt  of  the  palace],  lacking  in  (^^.  d^  has  "temple"  in- 
stead of  "palace,"  making  the  Samaritans  priests.  On  the 
Bond  of  Salt  v.  RS.  Relig.  Sem.^''\  The  idea  is  that  the  salt 
constituted  a  bond  which  those  who  ate  were  bound  to  respect. 

We  might  compare  the  covenant  of  salt  by  which  the  pr.  were  bound 
to  Yahweh,  Nu.  i8'»,  cf.  2  Ch.  13=,  where  it  is  the  sign  of  the  divine  title 
of  the  Davidic  dynasty.  Here  it  might  therefore  be  a  sign  of  the  agree- 
ment of  fidelity  of  the  officers  to  the  Pers.  king.  It  is  possible  that  the 
mng.  here  is  simpler,  the  idea  being  that  the  officers  were  in  the  king's 
pay;  see  AV.  "have  maintenance  from  the  king's  palace,"  so  Ryle,  Sieg. 
The  old  Jewish  interpretation  was  based  upon  the  sowing  with  salt 
as  a  sign  of  utter  destruction  (Ju.  9")  and  was,  "because  v/e  aforetime 
destroyed  the  temple,"  i.  e.,  salted  the  salt  of  the  temple.  Nestle  in- 
terpreted the  text  a  little  differently,  "because  the  salt  of  the  palace  is 
our  salt"  (v.  Sieg.),  because  we  will  suffer  if  the  king's  tribute  falls  off — 
not  a  very  high  motive  for  their  fidelity.  The  mng.  must  be,  because 
we  are  bound  to  protect  the  king's  interests,  therefore  we  send  this 
despatch.  Esd.  offers  a  radically  different  te.xt,  and  a  sadly  erroneous 
one:  because  mailers  al  Ihc  lemple  are  pressed  forward,  another  reflection 
of  the  temple-building  story. 

A  second  reason  for  their  report  is:  it  is  not  right  for  us  to  wit- 
ness the  king^s  dishonor].  The  word  rendered  "dishonor"  has 
the  root  meaning  nakedness;  that  is  the  idea  here,  it  is  not  right 
to  see  the  king  stripped  bare  of  his  lawful  tribute  and  territory. 
— 15.  In  the  book  of  thy  father's  memoirs].  The  words  imply 
that  the  kings  kept  a  record  of  events  presumably  for  reference. 


EZRA   4"-24'»  175 

These  Sam.  knew  that  the  records  desired  could  be  found  only  in  the 
archives  of  the  kings  of  As.  and  Bab.;  "fathers"  therefore  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  predecessors.  Any  story  of  Judean  revolts  since  the  time 
of  Cy.  would  not  be  adequate,  esp.  as  it  is  added  that  the  revolts  were 
in  the  olden  days.  The  reference  is  to  the  revolts  of  Judah  in  the 
century  preceding  the  collapse  of  587:  note  therefore  this  city  was  de- 
stroyed, i.  e.,  by  Nebuchadrezzar:  from  the  Bab.  point  of  view  the 
destruction  of  Jerus.  was  a  punishment  for  rebellion.  In  fact,  Judah 
had  been  a  vassal  long  before  587,  but  was  ever  ready  to  seize  a  promis- 
ing moment  for  rebellion.  The  Sam.  knew  the  history  of  Jerus.,  and 
knew  it  correctly.  Curiously  Art.  and  his  officers  were  entirely  igno- 
rant of  the  past  history  of  this  province. 

16.  This  verse  is  a  summarising  of  the  whole  matter:  we 
make  known  to  the  king  [Esd.  "to  thee,  0  lord  king"]  that  if  this 
city  is  built  and  its  walls  finished,  then  thou  wilt  have  no  portion 
beyond  the  River]  that  is,  the  whole  Syrian  province  will  be  lost 
to  Persia.  In  other  words,  the  complainants  assume  that  if  the 
Jews  complete  their  project,  they  will  proceed  to  reduce  their 
neighbours  to  subjection  by  restoring  the  old  empire  of  David. 
There  could  hardly  be  plainer  evidence  of  the  correct  date,  for 
such  a  result  could  never  ensue  from  the  building  of  a  temple, 
but  only  from  the  repairing  of  the  walls  and  the  restoration  of 
the  houses  in  the  city.  Esd.  has  a  different  reading  for  the 
latter  part  of  the  verse:  there  will  no  longer  he  an  outlet  for  thee 
to  the  province  beyond  the  River.  The  meaning  is  not  essentially 
different. 

12.  NinS]  Esd.  xy  xupftp  reading  nin\  Mar.  explains  preformative 
S  as  a  change  due  to  the  similarity  of  the  form  with  nini  (§  6  5a)j  gtr. 
otherwise  (§  ^st);  ji.  AJSL.  xiii. — iniV-jcJ.f  There  is  difference  of 
opinion  about  the  composition,  v.  Mar.  §  "d^  Kautzsch,'-*-  '.  There 
is  prob.  a  n.  which  has  lost  its  force  in  the  prep.;  the  mng.  is  like  Heb. 
D^D,  and  so  "from  thee"  or  "from  thy  presence."  (&  has  dx6  xijpou^, 
4x0  aou^,  xap'  uixwv^  ^"'^  ^^^■. — Nji'^i'].  The  Massoretic  pointing  sep- 
arates this  from  preceding  word,  giving,  therefore,  the  impression  that 
the  complainants  were  at  Jerus.  The  pause  should  be  on  this  word, 
separating  it  from  what  follows. — xnnp]  lacking  in  (S^,  but  by  an  ob- 
vious error. — xmia]  Vv.  '^-is;  on  the  form  v.  Mar.  §  **,  Kautzsch,  §  "d 
(kattal).  It  is  equivalent  to  Heb.  tic.  From  Esd.  we  infer  some  fur- 
ther n.  than  city.  The  passage  would  then  run  to  Jerus.  the  rebellious 
city,  and  they  are  building  its  — . — Mar.  et  al.,  adopt  Qr.    iSSoc  *tmtyi] 


176  EZR  A-NEHEMI  AH 

but  this  cannot  mean  they  have  finished  the  walls,  otherwise  the  com- 
plaint would  have  been  too  late.  V.  "  indicates  that  the  walls  are  not 
finished.  The  Vrss.  offer  some  variety :  (&  %a\  xa.  xeixfi  au-ui^i;  xa-cTjp- 
xia^iivoi  e'itjlv,  they  are  repairing  (or  finishing)  the  walls,  using  the 
same  word  for  SS3  in  vv.  "■  '«  5=-  ^-  "  6"  (but  in  v.  "  ^  has  IxoiiAaaG^). 
Esd.  has  xal  la  xeiyr}  Ospaxeuouat,  but  auvTsXeaB^  in  v.  ",  showing  a 
different  Aram.  vb.  here.  3  Esd.  et  statmint  muros.  0ep.  may  have 
the  mng.  repair,  and  that  is  the  sense  required  here. — la^ni  nib'ni]  offers 
serious  difficulty.  (&  has  v-dX  GspisXtous  auTJjc;  avutj^waav,  "B  et  parietes 
componentes.  Esd.  xal  vcih-^  uxopaXXovTat^'^,  y..  v.  uxsp^iXXovra  Ge[xe- 
XtoOfftv^.  3  Esd,  et  templmn  suscitant.  Esd.  is  clear  in  one  respect,  the 
reference  being  to  the  temple.  The  usual  rendering  "they  have  re- 
paired the  foundations,"  is  impossible  after  the  statement  about  the 
walls.  Many  conjectures  have  been  made  {v.  BDB.  s.  v.  am  and  the 
comm.).  Str.  reads  lain'',  as  5'%  "laid  the  foundations."  Jensen  derives 
from  As.  hahi,  "examine,"  an  unsuitable  sense  here.  Haupt  calls  it 
Afil  of  B'jn,  "excavate  the  rubbish"  (Guthe,^'),  likewise  impossible  here. 
"They  are  repairing  the  gates"  would  be  the  best  sense,  but  there 
is  no  basis  for  this  reading.  It  is  more  natural  to  follow  Esd.  and 
place  N'PS'iNai .  .  .  NHNnp  in  apposition  with  aSs'n\  The  separation  of 
the  obj.  from  its  vb.  by  these  adjectives,  as  is  usually  done,  is  very 
awkward. — pj^]  is  left  without  an  obj.,  but  the  text  is  wrong  in  any 
event;  the  ptc.  would  not  be  used  with  the  verbs  following  in  theimpf. 
(S^  has  xal  olxoSo[jLouaiv  auT'^v.  Esd.  has  oE/.oOatv  [oixoSotAoOac^^]  -ud:? 
Ts  dYopa?  auT^q.  3  Esd.  cedificant  furnos  ejus.  'Ayopd  is  used  in  Eccl. 
i2<-  s  Ct.  3=  for  P12',  "a  street,"  which  is  really  an  Aram,  word,  and 
which  may  have  been  confused  with  ma'  though  "US'  is  represented.  In 
the  case  of  a  modern  city,  laying  out  its  streets  would  be  a  first  step, 
but  that  would  hardly  be  the  case  in  an  ancient  Oriental  town.  Yet 
from  V. "  if  this  city  be  built,  and  v.  ^i  this  city  shall  not  be  built,  we 
might  infer  that  city  was  meant  here;  but  there  are  three  counts  in 
V.  1-,  reduced  to  two  in  v. ''  and  to  one  in  v.  -',  so  that  the  phrases  are 
not  repeated.  Indeed,  we  should  expect  a  generalisation  in  the  latter 
passage.  Some  form  of  nj2  is  well  attested,  and  some  obj.  is  required. 
Now  NPB'iNai  does  not  recur  with  nii^-\p  in  v. ",  and  is  an  anticlimax. 
The  crux  of  the  charge  is  that  Jerus.  had  been  a  rebellious  city.  That 
it  was  "bad"  would  have  had  no  significance.  It  may  be  that  the 
obj.  of  "build"  is  concealed  in  this  word,  though  it  is  not  easy  to  con- 
jecture its  nature. 

13.  Esd.  lacks  toSn*?  .  .  .  j>*3.  The  words  may  be  an  accidental  rep- 
etition from  v. ". — I'^ni  iVa  mjD]  v. ""  7",  (5  qxSpot  oux  ejov-rat^^,  f  6pwv 
Tcpa^'v  xal  auvTiXeopia^,  Esd.  90poXoy(otv  ou  [j.t)  uxojjLetvuatv  Soijvac.  ^  as 
often  shows  correction  from  MT.  (S  has  had  our  text,  but  in  1S3  has 
seen  a  negative  (nS)  and  in  iSn  a  vb.  (I'^n'').  m:c,  or,  better,  nnn,  so 
Heb.  Ne.  5*  (cf.  did  6')  is  derived  from  As.  mandatu  {nadanu,  "give" 


EZRA    4^ -24 a  I^y 

=  Heb.  jnj).  pa  is  explained  from  As.  hiltu,  "tax,"  or,  better,  from 
Iranian  bali,  ''tribute."  Mey.  explains  as  tax  in  kind.  iSn  from  vb. 
"go,"  is  explained  as  money  paid  for  going,  "toll"  (Mar.  Glossary, 
Str.  et  al.);  but  such  a  derivation  is  not  convincing  though  generally 
accepted.  Another  explanation  is  found  in  As.  ilku,  "tax"  (Ges.^, 
Winckler,  Alt.  Forsch.  xv,"^  '•).  Winckler  supposes  1*73  to  be  a  corrup- 
tion of  iSo'  of  the  original  text,  and  renders  the  passage:  "they  will 
withhold  tribute  and  pay  no  taxes"  (op.  cit.).  He  is  close  to  the  truth, 
but  it  is  better  to  follow  Esd.  {v.  s.).  Mey.  regards  (^  as  evidence  that 
the  translators  were  no  longer  able  to  distinguish  the  three  kinds  of 
tribute. — DnDN'Jfmng.  dub.;  Andreas  emends  dddn,  Pers.  afsos,  "in- 
jury"; usually  explained  as  mng.  "in  the  end";  Scheft.  (BDB.)  "treas- 
uries," from  Zend  patkiva.  Mey.  gets  mng.  "income." — aisSn]  "an 
unsupportable  Hebraism"  (Mey.  Etit.-*);  he  would  rd.  n^Sd,  so  "the 
revenues  of  the  king." — ;^ur^D]  vv.  '^- "  Dn.  6^  f;  on  the  form  v. 
Kautzsch,  §  3^  -^,  third  p.  f.  used  in  neuter  sense,  "it  will  injure,"  or 
it  may  go  back  at  least  in  sense  to  nnp  (Berth.).  05  xaxoicotel^*^, 
hyXiiaouaa^,  Esd.  avTtaTYjaovrat.  The  last  word  in  2  Ch.  13''-  repre- 
sents pin  in  Hithp.,  but  sense  prob.  "rebel  against"  as  3  Esd.  resistent. 
— 14.  nn;*]  (5  with  great  literalness,  aa%Tj[xoauvT),  the  rendering  in  many 
places  of  Heb.  nnj?,  which  is  apparently  the  same  word  used  here. — 
15.  x''j-iD-i]  Heb.  piDT,  cf.  Mai.  3'",  "memorandum-book";  here  the 
royal  annals.  The  phrase  is  wanting  in  (&^^  in  the  second  place;  Esd. 
Iv  xolq  dL%'h  xcov  xaTripwv  aou  ptpXtoi?. — Jjin]  Heb.  njnD,  cf.  2',  Esd.  •rcoXet?. 
— inntt'N]  V. "  t  from  -ns-,  Dn.  6'»,  Mar.  §  '^^  CS  (pui-aSsia. — jnaj']  ® 
SouXwv,  by  an  easy  misunderstanding.  Esd.  xoXiopxt'a?  CTuveaTaixlvot, 
may  represent  this  text,  giving  to  "nnirs  a  mng.  somewhat  different 
from  the  received  one,  "enduring  sieges." — 16''.  (S^^  has  only  oox  gaTtv 
aot  etp-^viQ.  Esd.,  e^ooo?,  has  rd.  p'^'n  as  l^n  (f/.  v.  ").  (S  is  certainly 
not  based  on  our  text  exc.  for  iS  n*^. 

17-24*.    The  edict  of  Artaxerxes  and  its  execution. 

The  king  sent  a  reply  to  Rehum,  Shimshai,  and  their  associates 
saying  that  the  annals  had  been  searched  and  their  charges  against 
Jerus.  sustained.  Therefore  he  directs  his  oflScers  to  stop  the  building 
of  the  city  until  authorisation  is  given  by  him.  The  officers  proceed 
to  Jerus.  with  a  body  of  troops  and  stop  the  operations. 

17.  As  the  text  stands  we  naturally  take  the  whole  verse, 
except  the  last  two  words,  as  introductory  to  the  letter,  the  king 
sent  a  decree  to  Rehum].  The  passage  is  so  read  in  the  Vrss. 
The  Greek  has  and  the  king  sent  hack  to  Rehum  .  .  .  peace  and 
command.     Esd.,  then  the  king  wrote  back  to  Rehum  .  .  .  the 


1 78  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

subjoined  letter,  as  in  v.  ".  The  names  of  the  persons  addressed 
are,  however,  an  essential  part  of  the  letter  itself,  and  we  have 
a  good  beginning  of  the  letter  with  those  names :  to  Rehum.  .  .  . 
Peace  to  you.  And  now].  The  first  clause  is  then  all  that  we  have 
by  way  of  introduction,  the  king  sent  a  decree.  We  note,  how- 
ever, that  the  name  of  the  king  is  not  found  in  the  reply  at  all. 
It  is  therefore  quite  likely  that  the  text  is  corrupt  and  that  the 
verse  originally  read:  Artaxerxes  the  king  to  Rehum  et  al.,  that  is, 
there  was  no  introduction  at  all,  but  only  the  letter  itself. — 
18.  The  letter  which  you  sent  unto  us  has  been  read  before  me  in 
translation].  As  the  singular  is  used  elsewhere,  "unto  us"  must 
be  a  mistake  for  "unto  me."  "Plainly  read,"  as  usually  ren- 
dered, is  found  also  in  Ne.  8»;  ARV.™  has  "or  translated."  That 
is  the  correct  sense.  The  king  probably  did  not  understand 
Aramaic,  and  his  scribes  therefore  would  translate  the  letter. 
The  word  occurs  in  the  Eleph.  pap.  v,*  where  "explained"  seems 
to  be  the  meaning.  Esd.  has  a  simpler  text:  /  have  read  the  let- 
ter which  you  sent  to  me,  obtained  by  omitting  two  of  the  Aramaic 
words. — 19.  /  issued  an  order  and  they  searched  and  found]. 
The  search  was  made  in  the  annals  suggested  in  v.  ^^.  The  dis- 
coveries amply  justified  the  charges  of  the  accusers;  for  the 
king's  secretaries  unearthed  these  facts  concerning  Jerusalem: 
this  city  from  olden  time  has  risen  against  kings,  and  rebellion  and 
insurrection  have  been  made  in  it].  This  verse  indorses  the  com- 
plaint of  V.  ^^  which  should  apparently  be  reproduced.  The 
words  all  recur,  but  in  a  different  connection. — 20.  The  search 
uncovered  more  than  the  accusers  had  charged;  for  three  new 
points  are  made:  (i)  Mighty  kings  were  over  Jerusalem],  show- 
ing that  only  the  Judean  kingdom  was  involved.  (2)  And  they 
ruled  over  all  the  province  beyond  the  River],  all  the  Persian  domin- 
ions west  of  the  Euphrates.  (3)  And  tribute,  custom  and  toll 
{v.  on  V.  ")  were  paid  to  them].  The  last  two  clauses  are  combined 
in  Esd.,  ruling  and  taxing  the  province  beyond  the  River.  The 
conditions  described  in  (2)  and  (3)  were  never  true  except  in 
the  time  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  Ryle  supposes  that  those 
kings  are  meant  here.  But  Sieg.  rightly  questions  whether  the 
archives  found  in  Persia  would  preserve  records  of  the  Judean 


EZRA   4^-24*  179 

history  of  that  period.  In  the  time  of  David,  moreover,  Jerusa- 
lem could  hardly  be  described  as  a  rebellious  city,  at  least  so 
far  as  foreign  kings  were  concerned.  If  the  king  had  a  copy  of 
the  inscriptions  of  Sennacherib,  there  would  be  adequate  data 
for  his  purpose.  There  is  really  no  need  of  assuming  the  pres- 
ence of  a  Jewish  hand  here.  It  is  assumed  that  should  Jerusalem 
be  rebuilt  and  its  walls  restored,  it  would  regain  the  power  it 
had  had  in  the  pre-exilic  days.  This  expectation  was  far  from 
realisation  in  the  period  before  Nehemiah;  but  it  was  sufficient 
to  arouse  the  apprehensions  of  a  king  who  was  always  fearing 
rebellion  in  the  subject  provinces. — 21.  Make  now  a  decree]  is 
surely  not  what  we  look  for,  since  the  officers  could  scarcely 
expect  to  stop  the  building  by  a  decree.  It  is  better  to  read  as 
in  V.  ^*,  now  a  decree  is  made,  i.  e.,  by  this  letter;  or  as  Esd.,  now 
therefore  I  command  to  stop  these  men,  i.  e.,  the  Jevv^ish  builders. 
— And  that  city  shall  not  be  built].  Nothing  is  said  about  walls, 
but  the  word  "city"  is  used  comprehensively,  so  that  the  injunc- 
tion stops  every  kind  of  building  operations.  Esd.  combines  the 
clauses,  to  prevent  those  men  from  building  the  city. — Until  a  decree 
is  issued  from  me].  A  clause  lacking  in  Esd.  The  injunction 
could  only  be  dissolved  by  the  one  who  made  it.  This  condi- 
tion was  necessary,  as  without  it  the  decree  might  be  regarded 
as  binding  even  though  the  king  had  changed  his  mind,  and 
such  a  change  was  surely  possible. 

22.  Be  warned  against  doing  remissly  in  this  matter].  The 
king  did  not  appreciate  the  hostile  purpose  of  the  complainants; 
he  did  not  realise  how  eager  they  would  be  to  execute  his  orders; 
and  he  was  aware  that  royal  decrees  were  not  always  taken  very 
seriously  in  remote  provinces. — Lest  injury  should  increase  to 
royal  loss].  The  interrogative  sentence  of  EV^.  shows  a  strange 
misunderstanding  of  the  text. — 23.  Then  after  the  copy  of  the 
letter].  "Copy"  creates  the  same  difficulty  here  as  in  v." 
and  as  "plainly"  in  v.  ^*,  which  is  from  the  same  root.  "Trans- 
lation of  the  letter"  would  be  better. — Was  read  in  the  presence 
of  Rehum].  The  royal  messenger  who  brought  the  edict  prob- 
ably read  or  translated  it  to  the  officers  and  their  council.  Here 
only  Rehum's  official  title  is  lacking,  probably  due  to  an  error 


l8o  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

of  a  copyist.  Esd.  has  here  a  preferable  text:  then  the  writing  oj 
King  Artaxerxes  being  read,  Rehmn  el  al.  proceeded,  etc. — They 
proceeded  in  haste  to  Jerusalem  against  the  Jews].  A  considerable 
time  must  have  elapsed  between  the  sending  of  the  despatch  and 
the  receipt  of  the  reply,  especially  as  an  investigation  of  the 
archives  in  Persia  was  necessary.  The  building  meanwhile  had 
continued,  all  the  more  vigorously  if  the  Jews  suspected  the 
effort  to  stop  their  work.  The  moment  the  injunction  comes  to 
hand  the  zealous  officials  hasten  to  put  it  in  force. — And  stopped 
them  with  force  and  power].  Esd.  has  a  better  reading  in  two 
points.  It  says  marching  to  Jerusalem  at  speed  with  cavalry  and 
a  multitude  in  battle  array,  they  began  to  restrain  the  builders.  The 
clauses  are  in  better  order,  the  "armed  force"  being  connected 
with  "march."  Then  it  brings  out  the  fact  that  the  officers 
required  armed  men  to  enforce  obedience  to  the  royal  decree, 
showing  that  Jerusalem  had  a  considerable  power  at  the  time. 
— 24".  Then  the  work  stopped].  This  is  the  concluding  portion 
of  the  "correspondence."  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  connected  with 
c.  5,  the  Aramaic  account  of  the  building  of  the  temple.  The 
narrative  of  Nehemiah  shows  graphically  how  utterly  the  at- 
tempt to  restore  Jerusalem  had  failed.  We  may  safely  infer 
that  the  builders  scattered  to  the  various  towns  of  Judah,  that 
the  enemy  destroyed  the  work  that  had  been  accomplished,  so 
that  Jerusalem  was  left  as  desolate  as  in  587;  for  again  "its 
walls  were  broken  down,  and  its  gates  burnt  with  fire." 

17.  ndjpd]  5'-  "  6i>  Dn.  3'«  4"  f  Bib.  Heb.  Eccl.  8"  Est.  i^o  f.  From  Old 
Pers.  patigama  (Andreas,  Mey.  Ent.'^''  '•).  (B^^  lacks  the  word,  possibly 
because  its  mng.  was  unknown;  (5'-  has  a  feeble  rendering,  tov  X6yov. 
Esd.  combines  with  nh">,  if  that  represents  same  text,  Tdis  dvziyga'liev. 
— cn>'3i)  ahz']  (Si^A  gjpT^vYjv  v-ad  (paatv,  both  being  apparently  obj.  of  d-zia- 
TstXsv.  (S^  eEp-^vT]  u[jitv.  xal  vOv.  This  represents  a  good  text  reading 
poS  for  n;73i.  dVit  is  not  "prosperity,"  as  BDB.,  but  "peace  to  you," 
a  common  greeting.  The  greeting  is  lacking  in  Esd.;  in  place  of  last 
two  words  there  is  ta  bxofsf  pa[H).ivct  as  in  v.  ".  3  Esd.  ea  qua  sub- 
jeda  sunt. — 18.  irissn]  f  lacking  in  d^^  and  Esd.;  W-  c&<fn,iq.  It  is  a 
good  Heb.  word,  v.  Ne.  8«,  and  has  the  same  sense.  It  is  here  used 
adverbially. — np]  as  in  Heb.  means  call  or  read.  ^^^  IxXtqOt),  a  render- 
ing necessitated  by  translating  xjini:'j,  (popoXoYog.  06^  follows  closely 
MT.   Esd.  has  a  simpler  text  for  the  whole  v.:  'Av^yvuv  [legi  3  Esd.] 


EZRA   4^-24"  l8l 

TTjv  £xtffToX9)v  r)v  ■ji:ex6[jL9aTe  %phq  [li,  lacking  therefore  !f"^3»  and  •'mp. 
— 19.  cya].  Here  and  in  v.  =>  *"  (S  was  forced  to  translate  and  uses 
YvutiYj;  but  05^  in  ^ib  Zhfiia. — "laync]  (B  ytvovTat^^,  Y'Tvovrat^  Esd. 
has  01  d'vOpwxot  as  iubj. — 20.  pe^^n]  see  Mar.  §  s-.  Esd.  bxupoi  y.al 
axXT]pol. — pp"^::']  C5  eicixpaxouvTe?,  Esd.  xupisuovreq,  both  texts  reading 
as  a  ptc.  The  rest  of  v.  appears  in  Esd.  thus:  xal  (popoXoyouvxsi;  xoiX-r^v 
Supfav  y.al  ^o'.vtxTjv;  whether  this  is  a  free  rendering  or  represents  a 
simpler  te.xt,  it  is  hard  to  say. — 21.  m''Z']  rd.  as  in  v. ",  oitt'  or  npr,  I 
make  a  decree;  cf.  Esd.  iizixa^x. — airn^  NDya  ^jD-ny].  ^'^'^  was  apparently 
puzzled  by  this  passage;  we  find  ixi  [oxm?'^]  i-Kb  t^<;  yvwtnr]!;  =  p  ij? 
NDya.  (S^  shows  our  text,  though  disarranged  in  Lagarde.  Esd.  lacks 
the  passage  altogether;  but  in  v.  22*  it  has  a  rendering  which  covers  the 
ground,  and  to  take  heed  that  nothing  be  against  this,  reading  Sj?,  against, 
and  getting  a  negative  in  iSii'. — 22.  jninr]  f  Pe.  pass,  ptc;  it  is  the 
same  as  Heb.  ini,  which  may  be  of  Aram,  origin.  (5  xs(puXaY[jLevot^^,  xpo- 
dytxs}',  Esd.  xpovoif]6f)vai. — 1*?'.^]  C5  aveacv^A  icapa  Xoyov^. — nnS]  (^  i^-q 
xoT£,  Esd.  piTj,  z.  c,  nS.  The  force  is  that  of  Heb.  j?,  cf.  Kautzsch,  §  ^s-  m. 
— njl:''']  appears  in  Esd.,  xpo^f)  eicl  xXeTov,  evidence  of  the  free  render- 
ing which  often  characterises  this  text.  (S^  xXijOuvO^  a(p6Spa. — xSan]  (S 
dcpavtayii?,  apparently  interpreting  like  Heb.  Sjn  "destruction,"  Esd. 
•z^c,  v.<xY.iaq. — 23.  pana  n-p]  lacking  in  ®ba^  .^^  avTtypa9ov^=vSjinc,)^  tou 
SdYiAotToqi-.  The  title  of  Rehum  is  missing  here;  it  is  found  only  in  (S^ 
(piXi-estJ,) .  In  spite  of  the  strong  support  of  MT.,  the  title  must  have 
been  in  the  original. — iStx]  Esd.  graphically  brings  out  the  true  con- 
ception in  dval^£6^avT£i;,  a  common  word  in  Mac.  representing  Heb. 
JJDJ  in  Ex.  and  Nu.  {v.  Hatch  and  Redpath,  Concord.). — Niiini-Sj;] 
lacking  in  Esd.;  (5  xal  Iv  'louSa^A,  gTcl  lobc,  'louSat'ou.;^  correctly. — 
JJT1N'3]  (5  ev  txxot?,  Esd.  [xst'  Yxxou^"*,  ^zi'  "tcxuvL.  The  word  means 
arm  literally  as  Heb.  jn-iTx.  The  Gk.  rendering  is  hard  to  explain, 
but  as  331  is  thus  translated  in  Ex.  14'  Jos.  i7'«-  '^  i  K.  16'  2  Ch.  21' 
Is,  38',  that  may  be  what  was  seen  or  imagined  here. — Vin]  (g  SuviiJist, 
Esd.  oxXou  xapaT(4^e(i)<;  (Taxsw?^). — 24^.  |nN3  ^  xdxe.  This  form  with 
prep,  occurs  26  t.  in  Dn.,  but  in  Ezr.  only  here  and  5^  6-.  The  mng.  is 
the  same  as  jnx. 

I  formerly  thought  that  v.  ■*  was  from  the  Chr.'s  hand,  and  written 
to  connect  the  correspondence  of  Art.  with  the  building  of  the  temple 
in  c.  5.  The  text  of  Esd.  forbids  that  commonly  received  interpreta- 
tion. In  Esd.  2'^  we  have  the  v.  in  its  entirety:  and  the  building  of  the 
temple  which  is  in  Jerus.  ceased  until  the  2d  year  of  the  reign  of  Dar. 
the  king  of  Pers.  This  differs  from  Aram,  in  having  "temple"  instead 
of  "house  of  God,"  and  in  the  omission  of  the  meaningless  "and  it 
was  ceasing"  (xSaa  mm).  But  we  find  a  part  of  this  repeated  in  Esd. 
S",  "and  they  prevented  the  building  two  years  until  the  reign  of 
Dar.;  and  in  the  2d  year  of  the  reign  of  Dar.  Hg.  and  Zc.  prophe- 


l82  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

sied"  (6')-  24"^  of  Aram,  text  is  plainly  discerned  here.  The  clause 
"until  the  reign  of  Dar."  is  from  4%  where  we  have  added  "king  of 
Pers."  as  in  Esd.  2".  Now  5'  in  MT.  lacks  a  necessary  date,  and  the 
defect  is  supplied  in  Esd.  correctly.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  Art. 
correspondence  originally  ended  with  the  words,  "  and  the  work  ceased, " 
while  the  Aram,  temple-building  narrative  began  "in  the  2d  year  of 
the  reign  of  Dar."  When  these  two  narratives  were  joined  as  in  MT. 
there  was  added  in  4"  "the  house  of  God  which  is  in  Jerus."  The 
meaningless  words  "and  it  was  ceasing"  first  appeared  in  the  Esd.  text 
to  connect  5'  with  4^  (of  MT.). 


NE.  I,  2.   NEHEMIAH  BECOMES  GOVERNOR  OF  JUDAH. 

j^i-iia  Pilgrims  from  Judah  bring  tidings  of  the  sad  plight 
of  Jerusalem. — 1.  The  words  of  Nehemiah  the  son  of  Hachaliah]. 
This  is  a  heading,  like  a  title-page  prefixed  to  any  other  book. 
This  was  probably  added  by  an  editor  when  our  books  were 
compiled. — And  it  was  in  the  month  Kislev,  twentieth  year]. 
Kislev  is  the  9th  month  in  the  Hebrew  calendar  (cf.  Ezr. 
10^)  =  November-December  (Zc.  7^  i  Mac.  i^^).  "Twentieth 
year"  is  defective,  as  there  is  no  further  definition;  it  is  an 
interpolation  by  the  Chronicler.  This  date  as  well  as  that  in 
2^  were  taken  from  5".  The  date  in  2^  is  the  ist  month  of  the 
20th  year,  therefore  this  must  be  the  19th  year  of  Artaxerxes, 
unless,  as  Wellhausen  suggests,  the  year  is  reckoned  after  the 
Syrian  fashion  as  beginning  in  the  autumn  {Is.-Jud.  Gesch}'^). 
Susa  or  Shushan  (Dn.  8^  Est.  i^-  ^)  was  the  winter  residence  of  the 
Persian  kings.  We  find  a  correct  geographical  note  in  a  Greek 
text,  "Susa  the  metropolis  of  the  Persians."  This  story  opens, 
therefore,  like  Ezra's,  on  foreign  soil.  The  palace  or  royal  castle 
is  added  to  define  more  closely  the  abode  of  Nehemiah.  He  was 
at  the  palace  in  the  city  of  Shusban,  because  he  was  a  court 
ofl5cial  (v.  *^). — 2.  And  Hanani  came  in  to  me]  "to  me"  being 
rightly  added  from  (§». — One  of  my  brethren]  or  one  of  my  brothers. 
"Brother"  in  OT.  may  denote  one  born  of  the  same  parents,  a 
more  distant  relative,  a  fellow-countryman,  or  even  one  bound 
to  another  by  a  covenant.  From  the  expression  in  7^,  "Hanani 
my  brother,"  it  is  likely  that  he  was  a  near  relative  and  may  be 
a  literal  brother.     He  went  to  Jerusalem  with  Nehemiah  and 


NEHEMIAH    I  183 

was  placed  in  a  position  of  trust  by  him. — He  and  men  from 
Judah].  Hanani  apparently  had  not  been  in  Judah  himself, 
but  he  had  heard  tidings  from  a  company  of  returning  pilgrims, 
and  had  brought  them  to  the  cup-bearer,  because  of  his  high 
position  and  commanding  influence,  as  well  as  his  known  in- 
terest in  the  welfare  of  Jerusalem.  The  visit  was  scarcely  acci- 
dental, and  so  Hanani  deserves  credit  for  starting  the  important 
mission  of  Nehemiah. — And  I  asked  them],  not  Hanani,  but  the 
men  from  Judah.  They  had  been  introduced  to  him  as  return- 
ing pilgrims  and  the  question  to  them  was  natural. — Concerning 
the  Judeans,  the  remnant  who  have  survived  from  the  captivity,  and 
concerning  Jerusalem].  The  text  is  overloaded  probably  by  a 
gloss  (the  remnant).  The  implication  is  that  those  who  had 
survived  the  captivity  were  few  in  number.  The  reference  may 
be  either  to  those  who  had  always  remained  in  Judah,  and  so 
support  in  a  way  the  radical  view  that  there  was  no  return,  or 
to  the  small  number  who  were  left  of  those  who  had  gone  up 
from  Babylonia.  It  is  probably  a  specific  reference  to  those  who 
had  gone  up  in  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  (Ezr.  4^^)  and  who  had 
made  a  vain  attempt  to  restore  the  walls. — 3.  The  survivors  who 
have  survived  from  the  exile  there  in  the  province].  For  province 
V.  on  Ezr.  2^.  The  particularity  of  these  words  supports  the 
view  that  Nehemiah  has  in  mind  those  who  had  gone  up  to  Jeru- 
salem, otherwise  "exile"  would  be  strangely  used  as  a  note  of 
time. — Are  in  great  distress  and  in  contempt].  Nearly  a  century 
after  the  decree  of  Cyrus,  the  condition  of  the  people  in  Judah 
was  almost  hopeless.  They  were  few  in  number,  at  least  in 
Jerusalem,  and  were  poor  and  oppressed. — And  the  wall  of  Jeru- 
salem is  breacJied  and  its  gates  have  been  burned  with  fire].  This 
is  said  not  to  explain  the  distress  of  the  people,  but  to  reply  to 
the  second  part  of  Nehemiah's  question.  He  had  inquired 
about  the  people  and  about  the  city.  Both  questions  are  an- 
swered, but  with  singular  brevity.  Nehemiah  may  have  only 
recorded  the  substance  of  the  report.  It  suffices,  however,  to 
show  that  some  great  calamity  had  befallen  the  holy  city. — 
Breached  or  perhaps  broken  down]  the  word  is  too  indefinite  to 
describe  accurately  the  extent  of  damage  to  the  walls. 


1 84  EZRA-NEIIEMIAH 

To  what  catastrophe  does  this  report  refer?  The  great  majority  of 
scholars  have  explained  it  as  that  of  586  B.C.  Then  the  Bab.  army 
broke  down  (I'nj)  the  whole  wall  of  Jerus.  and  burned  i']^'^')  the  tem- 
ple, the  palace,  and  all  the  houses  of  the  city  (2  K.  2$^^  Jer.  398  52"  '• 
2  Ch.  36".  The  last  clause  Torrey  regards  as  a  gl.  (ES.^o"),  but  it  is 
immaterial,  for  the  city  was  pretty  effectually  destroyed,  but  there  is 
nothing  said  about  the  gates,  though  they  must  also  have  been  burnt, 
as  that  was  the  usual  course  in  the  destruction  of  a  city.  Yet  a  very 
plausible  description  is  found  in  Lam.  2',  "her  gates  are  sunk  into  the 
ground,"  implying  that  being  made  useless  by  the  breaking  of  the  walls 
they  were  left  to  rot.  These  accounts  are  all  manifestly  dependent 
upon  a  single  source,  for  they  all  use  the  same'words  for  "break  down" 
and  "burn."  Now  in  our  text  with  "walls"  we  have  the  pred.  nsiDC, 
the  only  occurrence  of  the  Pu.,  and  strictly  speaking  the  word  means 
breached.  Little  stress  can  be  laid  on  that  (against  Sieg.),  for  in  Is.  5  = 
and  other  places  the  same  word  seems  to  refer  to  complete  destruction. 
For  the  burning  we  have  nsi  here  and  in  2"  and  '^'dn  in  2'-  "  instead  of 
1^^'  in  2  K.  That  this  story  is  not  dependent,  therefore,  upon  the  his- 
torical sources  cited  above  is  shown  by  the  employment  of  different 
words  for  the  same  act  and  by  the  silence  in  regard  to  the  gates;  and  it 
is  to  be  noted  that  the  burning  of  the  gates  is  a  prominent  feature  of 
this  narrative. 

Neh.  is  deeply  affected  by  the  tidings  about  Jerus.  He  makes  no 
reference  to  what  was  said  about  the  people,  but  the  destruction  of 
Jerus.  depresses  him  deeply.  He  weeps,  fasts,  and  prays  for  days  and 
nights,  and  even  after  three  months  is  unable  to  control  his  distress 
when  in  the  presence  of  the  king  and  when  his  depression  is  perilous  to 
himself.  The  query  insistently  arises  whether  he  would  have  been  so 
distressed  by  hearing  of  a  calamity  which  had  occurred  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  before.  Kost.  explains  his  distress  as  due  to  the  continued 
dispersion  of  Israel  (Wied.^"^-),  but  this  scholar  lays  too  much  stress 
upon  the  prayer,  which  is  not  authentic,  and  too  little  upon  undis- 
puted facts.  Neh.'s  work  was  the  rebuilding  of  the  city,  not  the  gath- 
ering of  the  scattered  exiles.  Furthermore,  when  he  asked  the  pilgrims 
about  the  condition  of  Jerus.  it  is  most  unnatural  that  their  sole  report 
should  be  a  description  of  a  condition  which  had  stood  unchanged  for  a 
century  and  a  half.  That  might  have  been  a  true  account,  but  it  could 
scarcely  be  regarded  as  the  latest  ftews  from  the  holy  city.  Suppose 
Neh.  as  ignorant  of  Judean  conditions  as  we  may,  it  is  incredible  that 
he  should  be  unaware  of  Nebuchadrezzar's  destruction  of  the  walls. 

We  might  find  an  explanation  by  supposing  that  there  was  an  expec- 
tation that  the  walls  and  gates  had  been  restored,  and  the  grief  of 
Neh.  would  then  be  due  to  his  disappointment  that  such  is  not  the 
case.  The  report  would  then  be  tantamount  to  the  statement  that 
nothing  had  yet  been  done.    But  the  language  used  forbids  such  an 


NEHEMIAH    I  185 

interpretation,  even  if  it  would  meet  the  case.  The  report  is  the  wall 
of  Jerus.  is  breached  and  its  gates  have  been  burned  with  fire.  This  news 
is  a  great  surprise  to  Neh.  and  is  the  most  significant  fact  in  the  affairs 
of  Jerus.  The  conditions  require  a  recent  calamity,  not  one  of  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years'  standing. 

Therefore  we  must  suppose  that  since  536  B.C.  the  walls  had  been 
restored  in  some  sort  of  way  and  new  gates  set  in  place.  On  a  priori 
grounds  such  a  movement  is  highly  prob.  For  the  people  had  been 
able  to  build  ceiled  houses  for  themselves  (Hg.  i<),  and  had  restored  the 
temple.  Without  walls  the  city  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  any  maraud- 
ing band  of  hostile  neighbours.  We  are  not  left  to  conjecture,  how- 
ever, for  we  have  exact  information  in  Ezr.  4'-^*,  where  there  is  a  clear 
account  of  an  attempt  to  rebuild  the  walls  of  Jerus.  Neh.  knew  of 
that  expedition  and  was  anxiously  awaiting  news  of  the  accomplish- 
ment of  its  supreme  purpose.  Hanani  fell  in  with  some  pilgrims  who 
had  just  come  back  from  Judah,  and  took  them  to  his  influential  and 
patriotic  brother.  From  them  Neh.  learned  of  the  disastrous  failure 
of  the  expedition.  It  was  natural  that  he  should  be  surprised  and  de- 
pressed. 

4.  And  when  I  had  heard  these  words  I  sat  down  and  wept]. 
That  was  the  immediate  result  of  the  surprise  and  disappoint- 
ment in  regard  to  affairs  at  Jerusalem,  As  Nehemiah's  distress 
was  too  great  to  be  relieved  by  one  outburst  of  tears,  we  have 
the  description  of  continued  action :  and  I  mourned  for  days  [de- 
noting an  indefinite  period]  and  [during  those  days]  /  was  fast- 
ing and  praying  before  the  God  of  heaven].  On  the  God  of  heaven 
V.  Ezr.  i2-  6-"  a. 

Nehemiah's  prayer. — 5.  Yahweh  the  great  and  terrible  God], 
for  which  05  reads  the  mighty,  the  great  and  the  terrible,  usual  attri- 
butes of  the  God  of  heaven,  v.  4^  g^^.  Yahweh  occurs  nowhere 
in  N. — Keeping  the  covenant  and  mercy]  joins  incongruous  ideas; 
for  the  first  clause  means  being  faithful  to  an  agreement  made 
with  the  nation.  We  should  expect  a  word  like  "showing" 
before  "mercy."  But  we  find  "keep  mercy"  in  Ps.  Sg^^.  On 
the  nature  of  "mercy"  v.  Bennet,  Post-Ex.  Pr.^^  f-.  The 
phrase  is  a  hackneyed  one  and  is  of  Deuteronomic  origin  (Dt. 
7*-  ^^  I  K.  8^3  Dn.  9''),  The  whole  verse  is  found  in  the  last- 
named  passage  with  very  slight  differences.  It  appears  to  be  a 
stereot5q:)ed  form  of  prayer. — 6.  Let  noiv  thy  ears  be  attentive] 
called  by  Sieg.  "a  special  Nehemian  formula,"  on  the  basis  of 


l86  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

V.  ".  But  we  find  the  expression  in  Solomon's  prayer,  2  Ch.  6** 
Ps.  130^  (also  a  prayer). — And  thine  eyes  open]  of.  i  K.  S^^-  *2 
2  Ch.  6^  7^^  Here  again  we  have  the  stock  phrases  of  prayer. 
— Which  I  am  praying  before  thee  to-day,  day  and  night].  The 
participle  denotes  continuous  action  in  harmony  with  v.  *  and 
with  "day  and  night";  but  "to-day"  would  mean  a  specific 
time.  The  text  seems  to  be  original,  but  we  may  suspect  the 
Chronicler's  hand. — And  making  confession  of  the  sins  of  the  sons 
of  Israel  which  they  have  sinned  against  thee].  The  text  has 
"we"  as  subject  of  "have  sinned,"  but  with  (S  and  13  we  must 
read  "they."  Confession  was  a  typical  part  of  the  Hebrew 
prayers,  and  indeed  is  a  part  of  the  true  prayers  of.  all  worship- 
pers.— And  I  and  the  house  of  my  father  have  sinned].  From  this 
statement  Nehemiah's  Davidic  descent  has  been  inferred.  Such 
a  conclusion  is  not  improbable,  as  the  sin  of  his  house  is  sep- 
arated from  that  of  the  people  generally.  That  relationship 
would  explain  his  interest  in  Judah  and  his  sense  of  responsibil- 
ity. The  view  has  other  support  (cf.  note  on  2').  The  sin  is  the 
general  disregard  of  the  law  of  God,  going  back  through  past 
centuries  and  extending  down  to  the  present.  To  this  long- 
standing wickedness  is  ascribed  the  present  unhappy  failure  to 
restore  the  walls  and  thus  make  Jerusalem  a  city  capable  of 
defence  against  her  neighbours. — 7.  We  have  acted  very  cor- 
ruptly against  thee],  a  general  positive  statement,  followed  by 
the  negative  and  more  specific:  and  we  have  not  kept  the  command- 
ments and  the  statutes  and  the  judgments  [typical  Deuteronomic 
words]  which  thou  didst  command  Moses  thy  servant].  Moses  is 
very  often  called  the  servant  of  God  (Jos.  i  pass,  i  K.  8^^-  ^  and 
cf.  further  in  Ryle). — 8.  Saying]  would  properly  introduce  a 
direct  quotation  from  the  words  of  Moses.  The  alleged  quota- 
tion extends  through  v.  ^°.  But  these  words  are  not  found  in 
the  Pentateuch.  Nevertheless  the  phrases  are  mostly  Deuter- 
onomic. The  passage  from  which  this  is  mainly  drawn  is  Dt. 
30^-^,  not  2920  ff-,  as  Sieg.  says.  But  the  passage  in  Dt.  has 
nothing  in  it  about  transgressing;  it  presupposes  the  exile  as  a 
punishment  for  sin,  and  deals  with  the  repentance  of  Israel  and 
the  consequent  restoration  of  the  exiles  to  the  land  of  their 


NEHEMIAH    I  187 

fathers,  making  them  greater  than  they  had  ever  been  before; 
therefore  the  passage  must  be  exilic. — //  you  transgress,  I  will 
scatter  you  among  the  nations].  The  threat  of  dispersion  is  fre- 
quent in  the  pre-exilic  literature:  Dt.  4^^  (the  same  words,  but 
in  third  person  with  Yahweh  as  subject)  28'^^  Je.  9^^  Ez.  iii" 
et  pass. — 9.  //  you  return  unto  me  atid  keep  my  commandments 
and  do  them],  the  first  part  of  the  conditional  sentence,  contain- 
ing the  protasis.  Returning  to  God  and  keeping  his  command- 
ments are  not  the  same  thing,  as  Ryle  states;  the  latter  is  the 
result  of  the  former. — Though  your  banishment  be  in  the  end  of 
heaven],  taken  verbatim  from  Dt.  30^  except  "thy"  becomes 
"your."  Some  mss.  of  (&  h.a,ve  from  the  end  of  heaven  to  the  end 
of  heaven,  i.  e.,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other,  as  Dt.  4^^ 
(but  not  Ju.  7"  which  Ryle  cites).  In  Dt.  28''*  we  have  the  more 
appropriate  idea:  "Yahweh  will  scatter  thee  among  the  nations 
from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other  end  of  the  earth."  Heaven 
cannot  be  right.  It  is  true  that  it  is  conceived  possible  for  a 
man  to  climb  up  to  heaven  (Am.  9^),  but  that  is  the  bold  flight 
of  the  prophet,  while  our  passage  is  intensely  literal. — Then 
comes  the  apodosis:  From  there  I  will  gather  you  and  bring  you 
in].  We  must  read  "you"  instead  of  "them,"  as  Dt.  30*  and 
some  Greek  texts  and  B. — Unto  the  place],  but  Dt.  30^  has  "unto 
the  land."  Here  the  reference  is  to  the  city. — Where  I  have 
elected  to  cause  my  name  to  dwell]  is  a  frequent  Deuteronomic 
description  of  Jerusalem,  Dt.  12^^  14"  i6^-  "  26^  +  fifteen  times. 
The  phrase  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch. — 10. 
And  these  are  thy  servants  and  thy  people].  "These"  would  refer 
to  the  Jews  struggling  in  Jerusalem;  but  the  whole  verse  is  a 
loose  quotation  from  Dt.  g^^:  "and  these  are  thy  people  and  thy 
inheritance  whom  thou  broughtest  out  with  thy  great  power  and 
with  thy  outstretched  arm."  The  words  differ  slightly,  but 
the  sense  is  the  same. — Mighty  hand]  occurs  in  Dt.  many  times; 
so  does  redeem.  (&  gives  a  different  turn,  we  are  thy  servants 
and  thy  people. — 11°.  The  prayer  returns  to  supplication  and 
repeats  in  part  v.  ^.  (^  adds  a  clause:  do  not  turn  away  thy  face. 
— And  unto  the  prayer  of  thy  servants]  implies  that  others  than 
Nehemiah  joined  in  his  prayers.     The  following  paradoxical 


1 88  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

clause  who  delight  to  fear  thy  name]  requires  some  such  antecedent 
as  (&  provides.  But  there  is  no  hint  of  any  other  supplicant. — 
And  prosper,  I  pray,  thy  servant  this  day,  and  grant  him  compas- 
sion before  this  man].  These  words  have  a  genuine  ring  and, 
unlike  the  rest  of  the  prayer,  they  have  something  to  do  with 
the  case  in  hand.  But  they  have  no  relation  to  the  preceding 
passage,  which  was  a  lament  over  Israel's  unhappy  condition. 
The  words  show  that  the  supplicant  has  a  definite  purpose  in 
hand,  and  that  he  was  about  to  make  some  request  from  the 
king.  Artaxerxes  is  called  "this  man,"  a  use  absolutely  inex- 
plicable as  the  connection  stands,  for  the  king  has  not  been 
mentioned,  and  he  certainly  was  not  present,  as  the  words  im- 
ply. But  we  can  easily  put  this  clause  in  its  right  place.  In 
2^  we  have  /  prayed  unto  the  God  of  heaven.  That  was  a  critical 
moment,  and  the  prayer  in  v. "  is  in  part  exactly  appropriate  to 
that  situation  {v.  i.  2*). 

The  authenticity  of  Neh.  '5  prayer. — Neh.  was  certainly  much  given  to 
prayer.  Doubtless  he  offered  many  prayers  during  the  three  months 
between  his  receipt  of  the  bad  report  from  Jerus.  and  his  official  audi- 
ence with  the  king.  But  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  we  have  in  vv.  ^-lo 
the  words  he  used.  There  are  favourite  words  of  the  Chr.  like  Syn, 
V. ',  and  the  whole  prayer  is  made  up  of  passages  and  phrases  from  Dt. 
It  is  true  that  in  Christian  praying  there  is  an  unhappy  tendency  to 
use  stock  and  hackneyed  expressions,  and  so  the  resemblance  of  this 
prayer  to  others  in  the  OT.  may  not  justify  suspicion.  But  Neh.  was 
not  a  common  man,  and  would  be  unlikely  to  use  such  phrases.  His 
memoirs  show  a  peculiar,  clear,  succinct,  and  business-like  style,  and 
this  prayer  has  no  traces  whatever  of  his  hand.  We  must  regard  the 
prayer  w.  ^-lo  and  part  of  v.  "  as  the  compilation  of  the  Chr.  It  is  in- 
deed perfectly  possible  that  the  Chr.  has  worked  over  a  brief  prayer 
found  in  N.,  since  "I  and  the  house  of  my  fathers  have  sinned"  is  ap- 
parently genuine.  But  the  Chr.  has  wrested  v.  "  from  its  true  connec- 
tion, and  he  may  have  composed  the  whole  passage.  It  is  true  that  even 
the  most  radical  scholars  have  not  questioned  this  passage.  Torrey,  for 
example,  says:  "C.  i  Ne.  [the  Chr.]  seems  to  have  left  untouched" 
(Comp.^^).  Mitchell,  by  no  means  radical,  does  doubt  its  authenticity 
(JBL.  1903,8')-  But  I  cannot  believe  that  the  striking  similarity  in 
ideas  and  phrases  between  this  prayer  on  the  one  hand  and  Ezra's 
(Ezr.  9»  ^■)  and  Daniel's  (Dn.  g^  ^■)  on  the  other  can  be  explained  on  the 
theory  of  Nehemian  authorship.     Moreover,  'i*'  joins  very  well  to  v.  *. 


NEHEMIAH    I  189 

If  Nell,  recorded  his  prayer  at  all,  it  has  been  so  elaborately  worked  over 
that  the  original  cannot  be  recovered.  Whoever  composed  the  prayer 
either  had  Dt.  before  him,  or  knew  it  by  heart. 

Note.  Esd.  fails  us  for  Ne.  {cxc.  81-'-)  and  consequently  our  sources  for 
textual  criticism  are  comparatively  poor. — 1.  niSjn]  XsXxefa^,  XeXxfou^ 
(nip'^n),  AxaXta^-*. — i':'Dj]  only  elsw.  Zc.  7",  Sexe-nXou^,  •/aQs.rikou^, 
XaaaXsu^';  Bab.  loan-word  kislivu  (JBL.  1892,"",  ZA.  ii,-'"). — mijn]  is 
applied  to  the  temple  (i  Ch.  291-  '',  v.  i.  2^).  It  may  come  from  As. 
btrtji  or  Pers.  biira.  The  Greeks  did  not  understand  it,  and  so  trans- 
literated dgstpd:^,  d^stppd^,  Tfj  ^dpet^. — 2.  n^ii]  +  xpb?  [i.1^  =  iSn,  a 
good  reading. — min^n]  CS^ax  'loiiga^  but  the  prep,  is  better. — omn'in] 
lacking  in  ^^A'*.  A  better  text  would  be  obtained  by  omitting  rv^'ha, 
which  might  easily  be  an  explanatory  gl. — 3.  iincj  nrs]  lacking  in 
QJ^;  it  is  better  omitted,  as  such  overloading  is  more  characteristic  of 
the  Chr.  than  of  N.— njjia]  ®bn  j^^s  a  blundering  dup.,  ev  xoXst  [Tipa] 
ev  TCovYjpiijc;  sv  xaxo!?^.  The  use  of  the  ptc.  nsiDD  followed  by  pf.  inxj  is 
apparently  accidental,  as  there  is  no  difference  in  time  intended.  The 
only  distinction  we  can  make  is  that  the  one  describes  an  existent  con- 
dition: the  wall  is  breached,  and  the  other  a  past  act:  the  gates  have 
been  burned  with  fire. — 4.  In  sense  the  v.  divides  at  i3aNi;  the  con- 
struction has  misled  the  Massorites. — a"'D^]  etp'  T]tJi,ipottc;  xoXXat?'',  diebus 
niidtis  H;  this  may  be  a  free  rendering,  as  it  gives  the  correct  idea 
(BDB.  S.V.). — 5.  Snh]  (&  6  faxupo?,  B  fortis.^^on]  (S^^  ih  eXsd?  oou, 
e.  otuToO^.  Elsw.  we  find  ^D^^  (Dt.  7^  Dn.  9^). — 6.  r\2Z'p]  occurs  elsw. 
only  in  v.  ».  Rd.  ni^irp  T'Jfvs]  (Guthe)  so  (Si^  lat.  d)Td  aou  upoaixovTa,  H 
aures  tuae  auscultantes. — UNon']  (6^  T][jLapi:ov,  H  peccavcrunt ;  rd.  ixan. 
— 7.  Son]  inf.  cstr.;  but  used  as  absolute.  (S^^n  renders  StaXuaet, 
Ha-caccoast^.  Kittel  suggests  Pi.,  or  u'^iy  Siji. — i*?]  om.  ^^  evaoi''. — l^^v] 
(&  xatSi,  so  V.  8,  but  elsw.  SouXoq,  13  famulo. — 8.  -i3in]  (gL  xbv  Xdyov 
oou. — iSynn  ohn].  C|  has  edv,  ^  adds  (Jiot  =  '•'?,  which  might  easily  have 
dropped  after  iS.  Guthe  inserts  dn  after  dhn,  but  a  conditional  sen- 
tence in  Heb.  may  dispense  with  the  part.  Ges.^  ■"'"=. — 9.  a^mj]  (^^  Staa- 
Tpo?-^,  but  ^^^  StaCTTCopd,  which  becomes  a  technical  word  and  is  taken 
over  into  English,  the  diaspora  =  the  scattering  of  the  Jews  among  the 
nations.  It  is  better  with  (S  to  give  the  word  an  abstract  sense,  "ban- 
ishment," rather  than  "banished  ones." — d^c^I'h]  CgLN  add  ew?  dxpou  tou 
oupavoO  =  DTU'n  nxp  ijj.  This  may  be  implied  also  in  (6^*"'  which  has 
for  ^^p2  dtx'  dxpou  =  ^ipT2. — dx^pn]  ($^  auvd^w  ij[Jiai;,  B  congregabo  vos  ; 
rd.  therefore  oosapx  and  on  the  same  grounds:  ooTison. — 10.  qhi]  (S^ 
xal  vGv  fjtJLetq  =  ijnj  nnjn. — nnjjj]  (&  has  here  xat'Se?. — !!».  (6^'*  has  a 
plus  after  ''JIN,  jjl-J)  lictaTp^iJ'TJ'^  ^b  xpiawxdv  aou. — inay]  C6^  toG  Xaou  aou, 
and  so  having:  the  prayer  of  thy  people  and  the  prayer  of  thy  servants 
which  corresponds  to  we  are  thy  servants  and  thy  people  of  v. '"  and 
makes  Neh.  pray  in  a  representative  sense. 


190  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

l"''-2'.  Nehemiah's  depression  was  observed  by  the 
king;  its  cause  is  ascertained;  and  the  cup-bearer  is  granted 
leave  of  absence  and  authority  to  rebuild  Jerusalem. — 11''. 

Now  I  was  one  of  the  king's  cupbearers]  two  texts  of  <S  have 
eunuchs.  Whatever  the  text  may  have  been,  it  is  not  improb- 
able that  Nehemiah  was  eunuch  as  well  as  butler  {v.  Sta.  BT.^^^). 
Graetz  supposes  Ps.  127  to  be  directed  against  him,  to  which 
Is.  56^^  might  be  a  reply  (Berth.).  The  office  of  butler  was 
honourable  and  lucrative  at  an  Oriental  court  (DB.  i,^^^).  In- 
deed, in  almost  any  court  the  most  menial  duties  were  performed 
by  the  nobility.  Piers  Gaveston,  son  of  a  Gascon  knight,  was 
made  royal  bootjack  to  Edward  I,  an  office  for  which  men  of 
the  highest  birth  were  pining  (Andrew  Lang,  Century,  Oct. 
1907). 

This  section  begins  exactly  as  the  first  part  of  N.  (lO  now  I  was,  etc. 
These  words  belong  to  the  narrative  in  c.  2.  They  explain  how  Neh. 
obtained  his  audience  with  the  king  in  the  regular  course  of  his  duties; 
months  of  waiting  intervened,  however;  therefore  it  is  unlikely  that  he 
was  the  chief  butler.  It  appears  that  his  personal  attendance  upon 
the  king  was  but  infrequent.  This  fact  lends  support  to  the  notion 
that  he  was  a  eunuch  and  so  a  general  servant  of  the  court.  The  words 
are  more  closely  connected  with  2^^,  and  the  intervening  date  is  due 
to  the  Chr.,  who  has  borrowed  it  from  5".  Following  MT.  we  must 
connect  thus:  "I  was  one  of  the  royal  butlers,  and  in  the  month  Nisan 
of  King  Art.'s  20th  year,  the  wine  was  given  to  me,  and  I  took  up  the 
wine  and  gave  it  to  the  king." 

n.  1.  Nisan]  was  the  ist  month.  Since  Artaxerxes  reigned 
464-424,  his  20th  year  would  be  444  B.C. — Wine  was  before  me]. 
So  we  must  read  with  (B.  Before  him  of  ^  is  contrary  to  fact,  as 
the  following  statements  show. — And  I  took  up  the  wine  and 
gave  it  to  the  king].  The  wine  was  placed  in  Nehemiah's  hands 
by  the  chief  butler,  and  he  took  it  up  and  carried  it  to  the  king. 
If  ^  were  right  the  meaning  would  be  that  the  scene  opened  in 
the  royal  presence. 

The  EV''.  have  tried  to  make  black  white  by  rendering  the  next 
clause,  "now  I  had  not  been  beforetime  sad  in  his  presence."  But 
on  what  ground  can  we  import  "beforetime,"  and  thus  make  the  words 
imply  the  exact  opposite  of  what  they  say?    For  the  text  says  plainly 


NEHEMIAH    2  191 

I  was  not  sad  before  him.  This  statement  in  turn  is  contradicted  by  the 
king's  question  in  v.  -  which  shows  that  Neh.  was  depressed  in  spirit 
and  that  the  depression  showed  in  his  face.  <&  reads  and  there  was  no 
companion  with  him;  but  that  is  contrary  to  v. «  unless  we  limit  "com- 
panion" to  the  sense  of  court  official.  There  is  no  difficulty  if  we 
interpret  the  words  correctly.  In  the  subsequent  narrative  the  ex- 
pressions are:  why  is  thy  face  sad?  why  should  my  face  not  be  sad?  but 
"face"  is  lacking  here,  and  the  word  for  "sad"  is  slightly  different. 
In  v.=  we  have  if  thy  servant  is  good  before  thee,  i.  e.,  is  in  favour.  Here 
we  have  the  negative  antithesis:  /  was  not  evil  before  him,  i.  e.,  not  out 
of  favour  with  him,  therefore  Neh.  had  good  hopes  of  a  successful  pre- 
ferring of  his  request. 

2.  Why  is  your  face  sad?]  The  same  question,  in  identical 
words,  was  asked  by  Joseph  of  Pharaoh's  eunuchs,  the  butler 
and  the  baker,  Gn.  40^. — Now  thou  art  not  sick;  there  is  nothing 
now  except  sadness  of  heart].  The  king's  diagnosis  is  accurate 
and  penetrating.  The  servant  shows  by  his  appearance  that 
he  has  no  physical  disease,  but  the  months  of  fasting,  praying, 
and  worrying  had  left  their  indelible  marks  upon  his  face.  The 
trouble  was  accurately  located  in  the  mind,  for  the  heart  is 
thus  commonly  used  in  Hebrew.  Nehemiah's  sufferings  were 
mental. — And  I  was  very  badly  frightened].  Nehemiah  had  de- 
sired an  audience  with  the  king,  though  he  had  not  intended 
to  reveal  his  depressed  spirits.  But  the  consciousness  of  Jeru- 
salem's woes,  his  own  anxiety  to  secure  favour  from  his  royal 
master,  the  natural  embarrassment  of  the  long-sought  oppor- 
tunity, made  a  bigger  burden  than  he  could  carry  in  conceal- 
ment. Now  an  Oriental  monarch  did  not  expect  his  servants 
to  carry  their  personal  troubles  to  him  or  to  reveal  them  in  his 
presence;  indeed,  very  few  people  desire  that  of  servants. 
Nehemiah  knew  that  summary  action  might  be  taken.  He 
might  be  punished,  or,  worse  still,  he  might  be  banished  from 
the  royal  presence  without  an  opportunity  to  prefer  his  request. 
There  was,  therefore,  abundant  occasion  for  his  fear.  The  king 
would  scarcely  believe  that  "by  sadness  of  face  the  heart  is 
made  good"  (Eccl.  7^).  Nevertheless  he  did  not  allow  his 
emotions  to  destroy  his  privilege,  but  promptly  and  frankly 
stated  his  case. — 3.  May  the  king  live  forever].    This  form  of 


192  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

greeting  is  found  elsewhere  only  in  Aramaic,  Dn.  2*  3',  and  in 
slightly  different  form  in  i  K.  i^K  The  usual  greeting  is  "may 
the  king  live." — Inasmuch  as  the  city  of  the  house  of  the  graves 
of  my  fathers  lies  waste  and  its  gates  have  been  consumed  with  fire], 
"House"  is  lacking  in  v.  ^  and  may  be  dispensed  with  here  also. 
Nehemiah's  statement  is  not  quite  the  same  in  the  first  part  as 
that  of  the  pilgrims,  i^  They  said  "  the  wall  is  broken  down," 
while  Nehemiah  says  "the  city  lies  waste."  He  wisely  chose 
a  more  general  statement,  for  the  mention  of  defensive  walls 
would  not  make  a  favourable  impression  upon  the  king,  who  a 
few  years  before  had  ordered  their  restoration  to  stop.  Nehe- 
miah was  patriotic  and  perhaps  of  the  seed  royal ;  his  words  here 
indicate  Davidic  descent,  for  Jerusalem  was  particularly  the 
burying-ground  of  the  kings.  Therefore  he  could  not  be  other 
than  sad  in  view  of  the  desolation  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  difficult 
to  think  we  must  here  presuppose  a  catastrophe  150  years  old. 
— 4.  For  what  now  dost  thou  make  request?]  The  king's  ques- 
tion shows  that  the  great  moment  had  come.  Artaxerxes  dis- 
closed an  opening  favourable  to  the  patriot's  purpose  in  that  he 
invited  his  servant  to  make  known  his  plan  to  right  the  evil 
conditions  which  lay  so  heavily  upon  his  spirit.  And  I  prayed 
to  the  God  of  heaven].  Nehemiah  was  a  devoutly  religious  man. 
He  believed  strongly  in  the  direct  help  of  God  at  critical  mo- 
ments. He  had  now  reached  the  supreme  moment  of  his  life. 
Coolness  and  judgment  were  required  on  his  part  and  sympathy 
and  kindness  on  the  king's  part.  Before  making  his  plea,  he 
pauses  for  a  moment  to  invoke  the  interposition  of  God.  His 
prayer  must  have  been  very  short,  as  the  king  would  not  brook 
continued  silence.  The  prayer  is  not  given  here,  but,  as  shown 
above,  we  have  the  very  petition  required  in  i",  i.  e.,  prosper, 
I  pray,  thy  servant  this  day,  and  give  him  pity  before  this  man. 
The  use  of  the  term  "this  man"  is  clear  now,  but  incomprehen- 
sible in  connection  with  c.  i  {v.  s.). — 5.  That  thou  wilt  let  him 
go  to  Judah,  to  the  city  of  my  fathers^  graves  that  I  may  rebuild  it]. 
"Him"  with  (g  and  i"  is  better  than  "me"  of  ^  after  "thy 
servant."  The  last  clause  "to  the  city,"  etc.,  is  introduced  for 
more  exact  definition  of  his  destination.     Nehemiah's  request  is 


NEHEMIAH    2  193 

simply  for  leave  of  absence,  and  the  purpose  of  the  leave  was 
to  rebuild  the  ruined  city.  He  still  says  nothing  about  the 
walls.  The  naming  of  the  city  as  the  place  of  his  ancestors' 
graves  was  to  make  an  effective  appeal  to  the  king,  as  there  was 
then  as  now  great  regard  for  the  abode  of  the  dead. — 6.  Now 
the  queen  was  sitting  beside  him].  It  is  pretty  certain  that 
"queen"  is  not  the  right  rendering;  it  is  equally  sure  that  the 
exact  meaning  is  unknown.  It  is  probable  that  the  name  was 
applied  to  a  favourite  member  of  the  harem,  denoting  the  one 
who  had  the  most  dominating  influence.  Such  situations  have 
been  known  at  other  courts. 

(&  and  "B  were  puzzled  by  the  passage  and  render:  The  king  and  the 
queen  who  was  sitting  by  him  said  to  me.  Some  scholars  have  emended 
the  text  to  conform  to  this  idea.  But  the  clause  is  manifestly  paren- 
thetical. This  woman  is  not  mentioned  elsw.  There  is  no  hint  that 
she  did  or  said  anything.  Yet  the  mention  of  her  presence  seems  to  be 
genuine.  One  explanation  offers  itself  readily.  Neh.  attributes,  at 
least  in  part,  the  gracious  attitude  of  his  sovereign  to  the  presence  of 
this  woman.  Without  her  saying  a  word,  the  king  was  moved  to  show 
the  generous  side  of  his  character.  But  if  Neh.  owed  anything  to  her 
presence,  a  more  appropriate  place  to  mention  her  would  have  been  at 
the  beginning  or  at  the  end  of  his  story.  Moreover,  he  would  very 
prob.  have  stated  more  exactly  what  her  good  ofi&ces  were.  Therefore 
it  may  be  that  the  suppliant  sees  in  her  presence  an  obstacle  to  his  plans. 

The  king  shows  an  interest  in  spite  of  the  presence  of  this 
woman. — For  how  long  shall  thy  journey  be?  and  when  wilt  thou 
return  ?]  RV.  Then  the  king  asks  only  a  single  question,  re- 
peating it  in  different  words.  That  is  improbable  on  the  face 
of  it,  though  that  rendering  is  generally  accepted.  The  first 
clause  should  read:  at  what  time  shall  be  thy  departure?  i.  e.,  when 
do  you  wish  to  start?  Then  we  have  the  two  salient  points  for 
a  leave  of  absence,  the  time  of  departure  and  the  time  of  return. 
— In  V.''  the  clauses  have  become  inverted  by  an  error  of  a^copy- 
ist.  That  will  be  made  plain  by  restoring  the  right  connection 
and  order  thus:  at  what  time  shall  be  thy  departure?  and  when 
wilt  thou  return?  Then  I  proposed  to  him  a  time.  And  it  was 
acceptable  to  the  king,  and  he  granted  me  leave].    The  received 


194  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

text  empties  the  passage  of  logical  sense  and  has  led  to  unneces- 
sary emendation.  According  to  5"  it  appears  that  Nehemiah 
was  appointed  governor  of  Judah  and  that  he  was  absent  twelve 
years.  Berth,  says,  "v.  ^  foresees  no  twelve  years'  absence." 
That  is  true,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  as  Nehemiah  proposed  to 
rebuild  the  city  he  could  not  have  asked  for  a  very  short  leave. 
If  5"  is  correct  it  is  easy  to  suppose  that  Nehemiah  secured  from 
time  to  time  an  extension  of  his  leave,  a  course  by  no  means 
uncommon. 

7-9"  is  accepted  as  genuine  by  most  scholars,  but  the  whole  pas- 
sage as  it  stands  has  been  so  changed  by  the  Chr.  that  one  can  pick  out 
but  little  of  the  original.  9^  comes  badly  after  9",  which  describes  the 
arrival  in  Syria,  and  puts  the  cart  before  the  horse.  The  leave  car- 
ried with  it  ample  authority  to  pass  through  Syria,  esp.  to  one  with 
an  armed  escort.  Torrey  rejects  the  whole  (see  his  arguments  from 
the  language,  Comp.^^).  Winckler  regards  a  part  of  the  passage  as 
genuine,  but  his  criticism  does  not  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  In 
Neh.'s  own  account  there  is  no  reference  to  this  grant  exc.  in  v. ', 
where  it  is  unnecessary.  There  is  buried  in  the  passage,  however,  an 
important  bit  of  information  for  which  v.  i. 

7.  And  I  said  to  the  king].  Nehemiah  would  have  deferen- 
tially shown  that  he  was  making  a  supplementary  request,  such 
as  we  find  in  Gn.  18^^  ^-i  the  Chronicler  was  not  so  tactful. 
— That  they  will  let  me  pass  through  until  I  shall  come  into  Judah]. 
The  idea  of  the  writer  is  that  the  Syrian  satraps  would  have 
barred  even  the  king's  servant  unless  he  were  armed  with  a 
proper  passport. — 8.  Asaph  the  keeper  of  the  king^s  park].  Who 
Asaph  was  we  do  not  know,  but  v.  i.  The  name  is  Hebrew,  but 
Nehemiah  would  not  be  likely  to  know  the  name  of  such  an 
oflficial  in  Syria.  The  Persian  king  would  scarcely  have  a  park 
in  Palestine,  and  if  he  did,  it  would  scarcely  be  the  scene  of 
extensive  lumbering.  Smith  is  content  with  saying  we  do  not 
know  where  this  park  was  {Jer.  i,*^).  Asaph  was  to  furnish 
timber  for  three  purposes:  (i)  To  make  beams  for  the  gates  of 
the  castle  of  the  house].  The  hirah  or  castle  here,  says  Torrey, 
means  "the  fortified  enclosure  of  the  temple"  {Comp.^^).  But 
such  an  enclosure  did  not  exist  at  this  time,  and  the  Chronicler 


NEHEMIAH    2  I 95 

uses  hirah  for  the  temple  itself  (i  Ch,  29*-  *").  Perhaps  we 
should  read  the  castle,  which  is  the  temple,  or  the  gates  which 
appertain  to  the  temple.  (2)  For  the  wall  of  the  city].  The  walls 
were  built  of  stone,  and  the  idea  of  beams  seems  to  be  due 
entirely  to  the  Chronicler.  It  is  unlikely  that  Nehemiah  would 
have  mentioned  the  "walls,"  but  the  Chronicler  liked  to  see 
his  characters  clothed  with  ample  and  specific  authority.  (3) 
Aitdfor  the  house  which  I  shall  enter].  As  Nehemiah's  declared 
purpose  was  to  rebuild  the  city,  he  is  here  by  the  Chronicler's 
hand  removed  rather  far  from  his  design. — 9.  The  first  half 
of  the  verse  relates  Nehemiah's  arrival  before  the  governors 
beyond  the  river  and  the  presentation  of  his  credentials.  Then 
the  memoirs  are  reached  again,  but  the  construction  forbids 
rendering  as  a  circumstantial  clause  as  EV^.;  it  is  a  straight- 
forward narrative:  and  the  king  sent  with  me  army  officers  and 
horsemen].  In  the  Chronicler's  arrangement  this  follows  the 
arrival  in  Syria.  Ezra  at  a  later  time  felt  the  need  of  an  armed 
escort  {v.  8--),  but  he  had  forestalled  such  an  aid  by  his  religious 
protestations.  Nehemiah  had  no  such  scruples.  The  mention 
of  officers  and  cavalry  indicates  that  the  guard  was  of  con- 
siderable size.  The  dangers  of  the  journey  were  doubtless  very 
real.  We  have  not  a  word  about  the  trip.  The  patriot  was 
not  concerned  about  a  history  of  his  travels,  but  only  about 
the  work  to  be  done  in  Jerusalem. 

lib.  nptyc]  euvoOxo<;^'^',  olwxooq^^,  pincerna  B.  The  first  is  prob. 
a  confusion  within  <S,  on  account  of  the  similarity  of  words,  as  we 
could  hardly  explain  a  change  from  ono.  On  the  syntax,  v.  Ges.^^  '"0. 
ntt>pD  is  really  a  ptc.  and  means  "one  who  gives  drink."  In  the  sense 
of  "butler"  it  is  used  only  here  and  in  the  story  of  Joseph  (Gn.  40/.). 
— II.  1.  p''j]  Est.  3't)  often  in  later  Heb.;  from  Bab.  nisdnu.  The  old 
Heb.  name  is  313N. — i^ish^]  (S^^^  evd)xtov  i\j.oiJ,  rd.  with  Kittel,  ct  al. 
'jflS. — For  jnj]  in  this  sense  v.  Gn.  40". — vjdSs].  To  get  the  accepted 
meaning  Kittel  reads  dijoS,  so  Kent.  But  we  should  require  "'Jfl  vn  as 
vv.  2  f-.  The  text  is  good,  but  it  has  not  been  correctly  interpreted. 
— ynl  is  antithetic  to  21311  jn  v. '  and  means  "in  disfavour."  (&  gets  an 
entirely  different  sense:  -^v  ?T£po<;  =  j:^  nm;  that  is  difficult  to  reconcile 
with  V. ',  and  is  unnecessary.  But  see  my  note  in  Guthe,'".  (&^^  adds 
xal  ^[xri-^  cxu6p(i)'rc6c;,  and  I  was  of  a  sad  coimtenatjce,  lacking  nS,  but 
this  is  a  dup. — 2.  pnn]  cj.  Gn.  40'  Dijn  ddijo  yno,  and  d>j£3  yi  Eccl.  ^S 


196  EZR  A-NEHEMI  AH 

— n'^in]  05^AN  (jtexpta'Cwv,  a.  X.  in  (S>.  This  gives  a  different  sense:  2vhy 
is  Ihyfacc  sad  attd  thou  art  not  composed?  This  is  an  interesting  variant, 
but  i^  is  prob.  correct. — 2S  j?-\]  in  i  S.  i;^'  a^S  yn  means  "badness  of 
heart,"  "evil  purpose":  "sadness  of  heart"  is  aS-naxy  (Prov.  15"), 
aS-njJD  (Lam.  3").  (5^*^  renders  D'^n  and  >n  colourlessly  by  xovT]p6v 
and  xovT)p(a;  ^  with  better  discrimination  by  axuOpwxov  and  Xiixr). 
The  context  fixes  the  mng.  here,  and  "sadness"  is  the  right  idea. — 
3,  n^ni]  (5  l^T)T(i).  We  should  rd.  ^r\>  as  in  other  cases  of  this  greeting,  i  S. 
io24  I  K.  i25ff-. — iy-i^]  Ges.^".  d^'^^'  adhere  to  tcovt^pov,  (&^  aTuyv^ast. 
ni3  does  not  recur  in  v.  ^  and  is  doubtful  here,  needlessly  cumbering  the 
text. — nnap]  ^^^^  [jLVT]yi,eto)v,  so  v.  ^,  i:a<pwv^. — njin]  corresponds  to 
nsiflD  in  i^  as  iSjx  to  insj. — 4.  tt'pa]  in  the  sense  of  requesting  is  found 
only  in  late  Heb.  {v.  BDB.  for  references). — 5.  05^  has  a  plus  after  i'^xn: 
£xiaxa[ji.at  Tbv  ^aaiXsa  aya66v.  xal. — 6.  ^i"']  is  a  difficult  word.  Haupt 
says  it  is  identical  with  As.  'sigrdti,  "ladies  of  the  harem"  (Guthe,86). 
Lagarde  also  calls  it  a  loan-word.  In  Heb.  there  is  a  vb.,  Sja"  "to 
ravish,"  which  became  so  obscene  that  the  Massorites  everywhere  sub- 
stituted pti'.  On  this  account  a  similarity  of  root  is  denied.  But  we 
have  no  business  to  resort  to  As.  loan-words  without  exhausting  the 
Heb.  first.  For  Neh.  uses  good  Heb.  words.  He  could  not  have  been 
ignorant  of  such  common  terms  as  hdSc  or  nn^aj.  We  must  remember 
that  words  used  for  delicate  purposes  tend  to  take  on  an  indecent 
character.  AV.  teems  with  words  which  were  seemly  in  161 1,  but  which 
cannot  properly  be  rd.  now  to  a  mixed  congregation.  We  find  the 
word  in  Aram.,  Dn.  5-  '• ",  followed  by  "concubines,"  and  therefore 
"wives"  might  be  the  sense  intended.  Behrmann  refers  to  Ct.  6', 
where  we  have  "wives,  concubines  and  maidens  without  number,"  and 
so  the  passage  proves  too  much.  In  Heb.  many  scholars  following 
Ew.  substitute  ''■ri'  for  '^''^a'  in  Ju.  5=°,  in  which  case  it  would  mean  a 
captive  woman  added  to  Sisera's  harem.  But  Nowack  objects  to  the 
insertion  of  a  late  word  into  one  of  the  oldest  Heb.  poems.  We  have 
then  only  Ps.  45'°,  where  unhappily  we  have  a  corrupt  text  and  a  dub. 
mng.  It  is  uncertain  whether  the  words  are  applied  to  the  king  or  to 
the  bride.  See  Br.''^  It  is  clear  that  if  Sja*  means  the  bride  the  art. 
is  required;  if  it  refers  to  the  bride's  maid  it  is  hard  to  see  why  she 
should  be  arrayed  in  "gold  of  Ophir."  Perhaps  the  maid  stands  at  the 
bride's  side  "with  gold  of  Ophir"  for  the  queen.  Further  the  address 
to  the  bride  begins  at  v. «  not  at  v.  ».  Finally  (S  renders  TCaXXT)/.T)  here 
and  in  Dn.  It  appears  impossible  to  get  the  mng.  queen  for  this  word. 
It  is  very  likely  that  it  indicates  a  mere  member  of  the  harem.  But 
we  cannot  define  it  exactly. — It  is  unnecessary  to  prefix  art.  to  naiyr] 
with  Guthe,  as  that  would  change  the  sense.  (B  has  it,  but  that  is  never 
decisive. — Tin  nj;]  (8^^  have  one  additional  question:  Yvot  -rf  xdcBTjoat 
•jcotp'  e;xof;  but  it  offers  no  help,  and  it  not  very  intelligible. — iSnc] 
means  joiir?iey  without  doubt,  but  as  iSn  means  go  the  subst.  may 


NEHEMIAH    2  1 97 

surely  mean  going,  starling,  and  so  departure,  the  sense  required  here. 
— tnt]  means  a  fixed  or  suitable  time,  or  season.  Here  it  involves  a 
reply  to  both  of  the  king's  questions,  a  time  to  go  and  a  time  to  come 
back.  Winckler  emends  last  clause  to  jdt  •'S  jpii  {AU.  Forsch.xv,"^); 
but  that  was  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  passage  {v.  s.). — 7.  un^] 
di  SoTw,  }l  del.,  both  attest  sg.  and  understand  the  king  as  subj. — 
8.  Diifl]  Ct.  4^^  Eccl.  2^t,  a  loan-word  from  Zend  and  carried  over  into 
English  "paradise."  The  word  does  not  apply  to  a  forest  for  lumber- 
ing, but  to  a  preserve.  The  expression  dtid  iDsr  can  no  more  be  due  to 
the  Chr.  than  to  Neh.  There  is  an  important  reading  in  (&^^  which 
as  so  often  elsw.  has  escaped  the  attention  of  scholars.  The  text  runs : 
Aaaipax  Tbv  (puXaaffovra  tczi;  -^t^idvou?  toG  ^afftX^wi;  r.(x\  Tbv  -rcotpiiSetaov  0? 
laxt  Ty  gaatXei.  The  illumination  appears  when  we  put  this  back 
into  Heb.:  i'^dS  icn  D"nsni  ^Snn  >-nD  nnc  t\on.  It  appears  that  we 
have  a  dup.  for  DT\i3  and  (a)mfl  have  evidently  been  confused.  Now 
keeper  of  the  royal  tnides  has  a  true  ring,  but  this  officer  would  have  been 
in  Pers.,  not  in  Syria.  Neh.  would  have  had  little  use  for  mules  after 
reaching  his  destination.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Chr.  has  hope- 
lessly obscured  a  genuine  part  of  N.  in  which  he  described  his  outfit 
and  to  which  v.  "^  would  be  an  appropriate  conclusion.  Out  of  the 
present  confusion  we  may  extract  the  following  and  pretty  confidently 
label  it  N.:  aman  idi:'  tlD^<■''^^<  mjs  (v.  ^t)  i^jj  naion  in'^N— lo  -iSon  >•?  ]r\>^ 
"i*?  |ni  nirx  •^rh  ■m'N.  Then  we  can  easily  conjecture  that  the  actual 
grant  was  mules  for  the  caravan,  but  the  Chr.  has  corrupted  it  to 
timber  for  building.  Directly  following  the  leave  of  absence,  the  pas- 
sage originally  continued:  and  the  king  gave  to  me,  according  to  the  good 
hatid  of  Cod  upon  me,  a  letter  to  Asaph  the  keeper  of  the  king's  nudes  who 
gave  to  me  [animals  for  the  journey].  And  the  king  sent  with  me  army 
officers  and  cavalry.  Neh.  rode  a  mule  on  the  night  journey  described 
in  the  section  following. — nnp]  is  regarded  by  Torrey  as  a  word  char- 
acteristic of  the  Chr.  (Comp.^^). — noS  iifx  n-ion  njjc].  (gBA  j^^g  Qj^iy 
■ziq  TuuXai;.  n-|i3  and  no  are  syn.  and  we  should  rd.  either  non  ■^t^'^•,  a 
note  explaining  the  unusual  m^an,  or  n^aS  ntfN  nnyiyn,  to  which  mon 
is  a  gl.  The  mng.  would  then  be  the  gates  which  appertain  to  the  tem- 
ple, to  distinguish  them  from  the  city  gates.  Torrey  implies  that  (S's 
omission  was  due  to  the  difficulty,  and  he  notes  only  the  omission  of 
mi3  (op.  cil.).  But  he  sees  in  the  passage  only  the  Chr.'s  hand,  and 
not  the  additional  corruption  of  an  original  text. 


10-20.  In  this  section  we  have  two  distinct  subjects:  (i) 
The  opposition  of  Sanballat,  Tobiah,  and  Geshem,  vv.  ^"-  "  '•. 
(2)  Nehemiah's  secret  inspection  of  the  ruined  walls  of  Jerusa- 
lem, vv.  "-'**.    There  is  no  need  further  to  confuse  this  material 


198  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

by  dividing  the  chapter  at  the  end  of  v.  ^,  as  most  scholars  still 
do,  following  the  wrong  guidance  of  (&. 

10.  Sanhallat  the  Horonite].  The  name  is  Babylonian,  but 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  man  was  of  that  race,  as  Sieg.  holds. 
Among  the  subject  peoples  we  naturally  find  Babylonian  names. 
Sanballat  is  named  often  in  Ne.  v.  ^^  f^  41  6^-  ^-  ^-  ^^-  "  1328, 
always  as  an  inveterate  enemy.  The  epithet  "Horonite"  is 
found  in  but  three  of  the  above-named  places;  it  would  natu- 
rally mean  an  inhabitant  of  Beth-horon,  a  town  or  two  neigh- 
bouring towns  of  Ephraim.  But  Winckler  holds  that  since 
Tobiah  was  an  Ammonite,  Sanballat  must  be  located  in  Horon 
in  Moab  {Alt.  Forsch.  xv,^^^  ^•).  The  Elephantine  documents, 
however,  show  that  Sanballat  was  governor  of  Samaria,  hence 
the  former  place  is  meant. — Tobiah  the  slave,  the  Ammonite] 
V.  ^^  3^^  41  61- 12- 14. 17. 19  1^4.  7. 8  •]-_  T\As>  whole  expression  recurs 
in  V.  ";  in  3^^  we  have  Tobiah  the  Ammonite;  elsewhere  Tobiah 
alone.  He  has  been  identified  with  Tabeel  of  Ezr.  4^  by  Van 
Hoonacker  (Sac.  Zct.^").  The  names  are  similar,  one  meaning 
"God  is  good,"  the  other  "Yahweh  is  good";  but  Tobiah  is 
Hebrew,  while  Tabeel,  as  in  Is.  7'',  is  Aramaic;  but,  as  Tabeel  has 
been  shown  to  belong  fo  the  reign  of  Xerxes,  the  identification 
is  difficult,  as  the  letter  to  Xerxes  was  written  forty  years  be- 
before  Nehemiah's  advent  in  Jerusalem.  Slave  is  added  as  a 
term  of  opprobrium.  Tobiah  was  very  probably  a  slave  of  the 
Persian  king  who  had  risen  to  a  position  of  consequence  (Kue. 
Abh.^^).  Noldeke  holds  that  a  true  Ammonite  could  not  have 
borne  the  name  Tobiah;  but  Torrey  rightly  says  that  we  do  not 
know  enough  about  true  Ammonites  to  draw  such  conclusions 
(ES.i^*).  Delitzsch  suggests  that  the  name  is  evidence  of  the 
worship  of  Yahweh  by  other  peoples  (Wo  lag  das  Parodies ,^^^) . 
■ — //  was  evil  to  them  with  a  great  evil].  The  text  may  be  wrong, 
but  the  sense  is  not  affected.  The  meaning  is  that  it  was 
a  very  great  evil  to  these  enemies  of  the  Jews. — That  a  man 
had  come  to  seek  good  for  the  sons  of  Israel].  These  words  make 
us  suspect  that  the  verse  is  either  due  to  the  Chronicler  or  is 
misplaced.  Nehemiah's  arrival  at  Jerusalem  is  chronicled  in 
V. ".    It  may  further  be  doubted  whether  Nehemiah  would  have 


NEHEMIAH   2  I99 

used  the  impersonal  phrase  "a  man  had  come."  Further,  Ne- 
hemiah  does  not  describe  his  mission  in  such  general  terms  as 
we  find  here.  His  purpose  was  very  specific.  The  enemies  of 
Israel,  according  to  this  verse,  had  heard  of  his  arrival  before 
his  actual  advent,  and  they  knew  the  object  of  his  mission. 
But  Nehemiah  keeps  his  purpose  a  secret  even  from  his  fellow- 
Israelites. — 12.  After  three  days  {cf.  Ezr.  8^^)  spent  in  resting 
from  the  journey  and  in  sheltering  his  companions,  Nehemiah 
starts  out  on  his  famous  night  ride. 

On  which  v.  GAS.  Jer.  Sta.  Gcsch.  ii,i",  JBL.  1896,129,  and  the  map 
in  Kent's  Hist.  Biog.  NarJ*\  and  asp.  Mitchell,  JBL.  1903,"  «-,  who 
has  made  the  most  elaborate  attempt  to  follow  the  course  of  Neh.'s 
wall. 

/  arose  at  night,  I  and  a  few  men  with  me].  Secrecy  was  the 
design,  therefore  the  inspection  was  made  by  night  (though 
there  is  doubt  about  this  term;  v.  v.  1^),  and  with  but  a  few  at- 
tendants. These  were  probably  servants  who  would  have  no 
idea  of  the  object  in  view,  or  a  selected  body,  including  Hanani, 
who  could  be  trusted. — And  I  had  not  made  known  to  any  man 
what  my  God  was  putting  in  my  heart  to  do  for  Jerusalem].  (S 
lacks  "my"  before  "God,"  and  that  may  be  right.  The  par- 
ticiple "was  putting"  suggests  that  Nehemiah  had  reached 
a  definite  purpose  only  since  his  arrival  at  Jerusalem.  God 
is  conceived  as  the  author  of  all  good  thoughts  (Sta.  BT.^-'"). 
For  Jerusalem  may  be  contrasted  with  for  the  sons  of  Israel  in 
V.  ^^. — And  there  was  no  animal  with  me  except  that  upon  which 
I  was  riding]  a  further  indication  that  his  attendants  were  ser- 
vants, perhaps  Persians,  If  all  the  company  had  been  mounted 
it  would  have  been  more  likely  to  attract  attention.  The  ani- 
mal was  probably  one  of  the  mules  which  Nehemiah  had  brought 
from  Persia  (v.  s.  v.  ^). — 13.  And  I  went  out  at  tJie  valley  gate]  to 
which  by  night  is  needlessly  added  from  v.  ^2.  The  valley  gate 
(v.  1^  3"  2  Ch.  26^)  is  the  gate  leading  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom 
(on  which  v.  GAS.  Jer.  i,i^i  ^-  i'^  f),  and  on  the  western  wall 
of  Jerusalem.  The  corresponding  modern  entrance  is  the  Jaffa 
gate  {v.  Ryle's  note). — And  unto  the  mouth  of  the  dragon-springy 


200  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

or  according  to  some  texts  of  (^,  the  fig-spring.  This  spring  is 
not  mentioned  elsewhere  and  cannot  be  identified.  "Towards" 
(RV.)  is  not  correct.  Nehemiah  means  that  in  going  from  the 
valley  gate  he  passed  the  outlet  of  this  spring.  The  water, 
therefore,  must  have  emerged  just  outside  of  the  ruined  wall. 
— A}td  unto  the  dung  gate]  3^'  ^-  12"  f,  the  gate  out  of  which  the 
refuse  of  the  city  was  carried  and  so  might  better  be  called  the 
garbage  gate.  It  was  probably  the  southern  outlet. — And  I 
was  inspecting  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  which  had  been  pulled  down, 
and  its  gates  had  been  burned  by  fire].  All  or  at  least  a  part  of 
the  clause  is  an  addition  by  R.  The  repetition  interrupts  the 
succinct  story  of  the  ride. 

14.  And  I  passed  along  unto  the  fountain  gate]  3^^  12'^.  This 
gate  was  probably  at  the  eastern  side  of  the  Tyropoeon  valley. 
— And  unto  the  king^s  pool],  identified  with  the  pool  of  Siloam, 
perhaps  because  of  Hezekiah's  famous  tunnel,  or,  as  Ryle  says, 
"because  it  adjoined  the  king's  garden." — And  there  was  no 
place  for  tJie  animal  to  pass  under  me].  This  is  hard  to  under- 
stand; EV.  the  beast  that  was  under  me  is  based  on  B  cui  sede- 
bam,  but  cannot  be  fairly  taken  from  the  text.  Sieg.  interprets 
"under  me"  as  meaning  "so  long  as  I  sat  thereon,"  indicating 
a  "low  bridge."  However  pregnant  the  sense  of  Tinn  may  be, 
it  is  doubtful  if  that  interpretation  does  not  stretch  its  meaning. 
■ — The  narrative  makes  a  break  at  this  place.  Nehemiah  had 
been  following  the  course  of  the  wall  and  now  goes  up  a  valley. 
It  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  he  reached  a  point  beyond 
which  exploration  was  impossible.  But  as  the  mule  could  go 
almost  any  place  a  pedestrian  could,  it  is  far  from  clear  why  he 
describes  the  obstacle  in  this  way. — 15.  And  I  was  going  up  the 
wady  by  night  and  I  was  inspecting  the  wall].  The  participial 
construction  does  not  connect  well  with  the  preceding.  There 
is  nothing  except  the  doubtful  phrase  in  v.  "  to  indicate  that 
his  going  up  the  valley  was  due  to  the  impossibility  of  con- 
tinuing his  direct  course.  Some  texts  of  ^  have  /  was  going 
up  by  the  wady  wall,  the  wall  along  the  valley,  and  thus  suita- 
bly introducing  the  statement  about  the  inspection. — The  last 
clause  is  best  rendered  and  I  came  in  again  by  the  valley  gate], 


NEHEMIAH    2  20I 

the  same  place  at  which  he  had  started,  d  has  an  interesting 
variant :  and  I  was  at  the  wady  gate ;  and  I  went  hack  and  entered 
through  the  valley  gate.  It  does  not,  however,  clear  up  the  dif- 
ficulties of  Nehemiah's  tour  of  inspection.  This  verse  is  in 
large  part  a  repetition;  "I  was  inspecting  the  wall"  is  needless 
after  v. ^^ 

The  passage  vv.  '--'*  is  very  perplexing.  The  taking  of  the  trip  by 
night  is  explained  almost  too  easily  by  the  necessity  of  secrecy.  In 
the  first  place,  Neh.  discloses  his  purpose  immediately  upon  his  return 
from  his  ride.  At  that  time  there  was  a  large  company  of  nobles, 
pr.  et  at.  gathered.  Was  this  early  in  the  morning  or  still  at  night  ? 
Then  if  it  was  dark  enough  to  screen  the  party  from  observation,  it 
would  surely  be  too  dark  to  make  a  satisfactory  investigation  of  the 
condition  of  the  walls.  The'  examination  might  have  been  made  in 
the  daytime  without  unmasking  the  object.  He  could  have  deter- 
mined the  condition  of  the  walls  sufficiently  without  actually  travers- 
ing the  course  of  the  wall.  By  flight  recurs  three  times  in  the  passage, 
and  everywhere  is  loosely  thrown  in.  It  may  be  that  the  phrase  was 
added  by  an  editor,  who  deemed  it  an  essential  part  of  the  secret  pur- 
pose of  the  trip. 

16.  Now  the  guards  did  not  know  where  I  had  gone  nor  what  I 
was  doing].  Our  text  has  rulers,  but  guards  as  CH  is  better. 
Rulers  recurs  in  v.''  and  would  not  stand  in  both  places.  Nehe- 
miah  had  kept  his  course  secret  from  the  watchmen,  though 
they  must  have  witnessed  his  departure  and  return.  Perhaps 
we  have  thus  the  explanation  of  his  coming  back  through  the 
same  gate  by  which  he  had  gone  out,  as  that  would  prevent 
their  suspecting  his  real  itinerary. — And  to  the  Judeans  and  to 
the  priests  and  to  the  Levites  and  to  the  officers  atid  to  the  rest  doing 
the  work  I  had  as  yet  not  made  known]  supply  what  I  was  about 
to  do  from  v.*.  "Levites"  is  substituted  for  "nobles"  on  the 
basis  of  ^.  Still  we  cannot  lay  too  much  stress  on  the  text,  as 
it  plainly  betrays  retouching  by  the  Chronicler.  Nehemiah 
often  uses  the  phrase  "nobles  and  deputies"  (on  these  offi- 
cials V.  Mey.  £w/.i32-  ^^\  GAS.  Jer.  i,'*^),  but  he  would  not  say 
"and  the  rest  doing  the  work,"  as  that  is  anticipating.  This 
phrase  in  Ezr.  3^  is  used  of  the  temple-builders;  here  it  refers 
to  the  wall-builders  and  is  due  to  the  Chronicler.    Nehemiah's 


202  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

phrase  is  "the  nobles  and  deputies  and  the  rest  of  the  people" 
(4*  ").  "Judeans"  here  would  include  all  the  other  classes. 
The  fact  is  again  emphasised  that  Nehemiah  had  not  yet  dis- 
closed the  object  of  his  mission  even  to  the  highest  official 
classes.  Until  he  was  ready  for  action,  the  objective  point 
would  not  be  revealed. — 17.  In  some  way  not  explained  there 
had  now  gathered  about  the  new  envoy  a  body  of  officials  and 
others,  and  for  the  first  time  he  makes  known  the  secret  of  his 
coming  to  Jerusalem.  First,  he  arouses  their  appreciation  of 
the  unhappy  condition  of  affairs:  you  perceive  the  evil  state  we 
are  in,  in  that  Jerusalem  lies  a  waste  and  its  gates  are  burned  with 
■fire].  This  is  the  oft-repeated  description  based  on  i^.  Then 
follows  the  exhortation  to  act:  come  and  let  us  build  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem  and  we  shall  be  a  reproach  no  longer].  The  returning 
pilgrims  had  told  Nehemiah  at  the  beginning  that  the  Jews 
were  in  contempt,  i^.  So  long  as  the  city  was  unprotected  by 
walls  they  must  remain  the  butt  and  scorn  of  their  neighbours. 
— 18.  The  rebuilding  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  was  a  big  under- 
taking. Nehemiah  was  no  near-sighted  fanatic  going  to  war 
without  reckoning  the  cost.  He  did  not  desire  to  kindle  an 
enthusiasm  quick  to  begin  and  soon  to  end.  He  proposed  to 
carry  the  project  to  its  conclusion.  Therefore  he  now  discloses 
two  facts  which  were  the  foundation  of  his  confidence.  First, 
he  tells  them  how  God  had  at  every  point  opened  the  way  before 
him;  and  second,  how  he  was  supported  by  the  authority  of  the 
king.  In  his  record,  though,  he  does  not  put  down  what  he 
said,  for  that  would  be  a  resume  of  1^-2';  he  gives  only  the  sub- 
ject of  his  address :  afid  I  revealed  to  them  the  hand  of  my  God,  that 
it  had  been  favorable  towards  me,  and  also  the  words  of  the  king 
which  he  had  spoken  to  me].  The  sense  in  which  Nehemiah  uses 
hand  of  God  becomes  clear  now;  it  is  guidance  rather  than  power, 
as  BDB.390a.  God  had  led  him  to  the  king's  presence  at  a  fa- 
vourable moment,  had  moved  the  king  to  note  his  depression, 
had  caused  him  to  speak  the  right  words  to  move  the  king,  and 
had  induced  Artaxerxes  to  comply  with  all  his  requests. — The 
rest  of  the  verse  is  difficult,  and  we  have  many  readings.  MT. 
has:  and  they  said,  we  will  up  and  build;  and  they  strengthened 


NEHEMIAH    2  203 

their  hands  for  good],  making  this  the  favourable  response  of  the 
nobles  and  people  to  Nehemiah's  plea.  In  CH  and  B  we  find: 
and  I  said,  lei  us  up  and  build;  and  their  hands  were  strengthened 
for  good ;  or :  and  these  said  to  me,  we  will  up  and  build,  and  they 
were  strengthened,  and  their  hand  was  for  good.  We  are  in  doubt, 
therefore,  whether  this  is  the  final  exhortation  of  Nehemiah,  fol- 
lowing naturally  his  recital  of  the  guidance  of  God  and  the  fa- 
vour of  the  king,  or  the  assent  of  the  assembly  to  his  appeal. 
It  would  put  us  on  the  right  track  if  we  could  get  at  the  true 
sense  of  "strengthening  the  hands."  We  note  that  Nehemiah 
uses  the  phrase  "for  good"  in  the  sense  of  "auspiciously,"  5^^. 
It  will  appear  further  that  these  words  in  all  their  varied  in- 
terpretations really  make  no  sense.  It  is  clear  that  we  have 
no  statement  of  the  actual  beginning  of  the  work  on  the  walls; 
but  w.  1^  f-  imply  that  the  work  has  begun.  The  words  before 
us  may  be  rendered  equally  well:  and  their  hands  took  hold  au- 
spiciously. Therefore  I  should  follow  (8  in  part  and  translate: 
and  I  said,  let  us  up  and  build !  and  their  hands  took  hold  [of  the 
work]  auspiciously. 

19.  And  Sanballat  et  al.  heard].  There  is  no  object  and  we 
have  to  infer  what  they  heard  from  the  preceding  and  from  their 
actions.  Now  their  charge  and  Nehemiah's  reply  show  that  it 
was  the  building  of  the  walls  which  excited  their  scorn.  That 
presupposes  the  interpretation  put  upon  v.  '*.  The  enemy  had 
heard,  not  of  a  plan,  but  of  an  action,  the  work  on  the  walls. — 
A  third  enemy  is  named  here  (cf.  v.  "),  Geshem  the  Arabian] 
V.  6^-  2- «;  in  the  last  place  the  name  is  Gashmu.  The  foes  are 
all  foreigners  and  the  gentilic  name  is  added  to  show  that  fact. 
They  were  evidently  keeping  a  close  and  jealous  watch  on 
Jerusalem,  especially  since  the  arrival  of  Nehemiah  with  a  Per- 
sian escort.  For  some  time  now  a  large  part  of  Nehemiah's 
story  concerns  his  trouble  with  these  enemies.  Making  a  nec- 
essary correction  from  (^,  the  text  continues:  and  they  held  us 
in  derision;  and  they  came  unto  us  and  said].  MT.,  lacking 
"and  they  came  unto  us,"  implies  that  these  enemies  were 
already  at  Jerusalem;  but  it  is  much  more  likely  that  they  had 
for  years  been  preying  upon  the  defenceless  Jews,  and  hear- 


204  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ing  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  came  at  once  to  Jerusalem. — ■ 
What  is  this  thing  that  you  are  doing?  Are  you  raising  a  revolt 
against  the  king?]  The  first  question  shows  that  Sanballat  et  al. 
found  the  Jews  at  work;  the  second  is  asked  ironically,  for  they 
had  no  idea  that  the  Jews  could  carry  the  walls  and  gates  very 
far  before  they  would  be  able  again  to  appear  on  the  scene  with 
battering-rams  and  torches.  It  is  the  same  charge  made  by 
Rehum  to  Artaxerxes  in  Ezr.  4^^  ^^ — 20.  In  his  reply  Nehe- 
miah  first  addresses  himself  to  their  jesting  at  the  Jews'  big 
undertaking:  the  God  of  heaven  will  prosper  us],  cf.  i".  Then  he 
throws  off  all  disguise,  which  would  indeed  be  vain  now:  and 
we  are  his  servants;  we  will  up  and  build].  But  Ci»  has  a  tempting 
variant :  we  are  his  innocent  servants,  that  is,  innocent  of  any  evil 
design  against  the  king.  But  in  that  case  the  antecedent  of 
"his"  should  be  Artaxerxes  rather  than  ''God."  Now  when 
Nehemiah  says  "we  are  his  servants,"  in  view  of  the  charge 
just  made  we  inevitably  think  of  the  king,  as  if  Nehemiah  had 
said,  "we  are  his  loyal  subjects  and  as  such  we  are  building." 
It  is  at  least  possible  that  a  clause  has  dropped  out,  and  that 
Nehemiah  said  that  God  would  further  them,  the  king  had  ap- 
proved their  work,  and  they  were  his  loyal  subjects.  In  his 
appeal  to  his  followers  he  had  named  both  the  favour  of  God  and 
of  the  king.  The  mention  of  the  king's  authority  would  be 
far  more  impressive  to  Sanballat  than  the  grace  of  God,  and 
Nehemiah  might  well  not  overlook  so  formidable  a  weapon. — 
Then  he  proceeds  to  serve  notice  upon  them  that  their  days  of 
preying  upon  the  Jews  is  over :  and  for  you  there  is  neither  por- 
tion nor  right  nor  memorial  in  Jerusalem].  By  portion  Nehemiah 
means  property,  real  or  personal.  The  enemy  may  have  owned 
land  or  houses,  or  more  probably  may  have  exacted  tribute, 
which  would  be  equivalent  to  levying  blackmail  as  David  did 
of  Nabal,  i  S.  25. '  Right  is  not  "just  claim,"  Ryle,  Sieg.  Berth., 
but  authority.  That  these  enemies  claimed  a  certain  authority 
over  the  people  of  Jerusalem  is  shown  by  their  subsequent 
actions,  and  may  be  due  to  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  (Ezr.  4^'"''). 
Memorial  is  interpreted  as  meaning  that  their  descendants 
should  have  no  place  in  the  community  of  God  (Berth.  Sieg. 


NEHEMIAH    2  205 

B.-Rys.),  a  proof  of  their  past  connection  with  Jerusalem 
(Ryle);  proof  of  citizenship  (BDB.) ;  it  may  be  used  in  a  general 
broad  sense:  there  will  not  be  a  thing  by  which  even  to  remem- 
ber you;  you  will  soon  be  a  thing  of  the  past  and  completely 
forgotten.  By  the  restoration  of  the  walls  Jerusalem  would 
recover  its  autonomy  and  would  no  longer  be  open  to  the  raids 
of  roving  bands  in  quest  of  plunder. 

Mitchell  infers  from  Neh.'s  words  that  the  Sam.  had  offered  to  aid 
in  the  building  of  the  wall,  and  attributes  the  above  passage  to  the 
Chr.,  presumably  for  this  reason  (ICC.'^).  There  is  nothing  in  the 
remarks  of  Sanb.  to  indicate  anj^  such  friendly  purpose,  and  Neh.  is 
not  declining  a  neighbourly  offer,  but  serving  emphatic  notice  on  the 
Sam.  that,  since  he  is  the  direct  representative  of  the  Pers.  king,  their 
interference  with  the  Jewish  people  will  no  longer  be  tolerated. 

10.  toS^jD]  (B  2avaPaX(X)aT.  The  name  is  Bab.  Sin-nballil,  or  ace. 
to  Winckler  Sin-muballit,  but  Haupt  notes  that  this  m  in  Bab.  is  often 
silent  (Guthe-Batten,6').  ®  preserves  the  pronunciation  better  than 
MT. — "n  '\2-;n  noio]  is  lacking  in  (S^,  but  as  we  find  auToti;  for  an*^  it 
is  evident  that  the  omission  is  a  mistake. — nSnj  nyn]  sounds  more  like 
the  Chr.  than  N.  The  words  are  lacking  in  CS^'^^,  while  ^  has  a  vb., 
xal  eXuxTjOrjaav  =  nnii  (?). — 11  is  almost  an  exact  reproduction  of  Ezr. 
8"  or  the  converse.  There  the  verbs  are  pi.  and  we  have  acj  instead 
of  'HN. — 12.  oSc'n'''?]  [KSTx  ToG  TapaifjX^-'^'^',  ^  has  a  dup.,  prefixing  T'n 
'IepuCTaXTf][JL.  (H  was  influenced  by  the  Chr.'s  "sons  of  Israel"  in  v.  1°, 
perhaps  even  to  a  correction  of  the  text. — na]  ®ban  ^^'  auxu  =  n>Sjj. 
^  has  the  usual  dup.  ev  w .  .  .  ex'  auTw.  a  in  this  sense  is  so  rare  and  hy 
so  common  that  we  must  suspect  the  text. — 13.  nSiS  N>jn]  d  translit- 
erates yuikt]kdc,  to  which  we  find  a  correction  in  ^^',  yuv.ihq.  V.  ",  giving 
the  terminus  at  the  valley  gate,  shows  that  the  text  is  sound.  nSiV  is 
certainly  unnecessary  after  v.  ^^,  and  is  a  gl. — pjnn]  (B  auxwv^^^'  = 
DijNnn;  SpdxovTo?^. — "^2^']  auvxpf^wv^'^'^',  xctTavowv^,  31  consideraham,  so 
V. ".  The  former  stands  for  -y2-d  and  makes  no  sense,  nafc'  occurs 
only  here  and  in  v.  ",  but  inspect  is  the  sense  required. — nnin]  Tstj^st^Ax^ 
-cefxeatv'-,  murum  H:  point  npm. — aisnsan]  or  oisns  an  as  Qr.;  in  i^ 
iTiioc;  (6  has:  8  otuTol  xaOatpoOatv®**',  zolq  xaTeaxaatx^vot?^. — Z'Hi . .  .  IK'n] 
has  been  added  from  i^.  There  is  no  jugglery  by  which  we  can  join 
it  to  its  context.  We  might  retain  nxiDon  iii'N,  but  that  fails  in  v.  '^ 
Indeed,  the  whole  of  v.''  interrupts  the  narrative  of  the  itinerary  and 
needlessly  anticipates  v.  "^  Houtsma  reads  3''X-i2n  nnrx,  comparing 
Aram,  njicn,  Ezr.  5'-  ',  and  believes  the  first  word  has  a  special  ar- 
chitectural mng.  like  gate-structure  {ZAW.  1907,^8  f.)_ — 14,  pjyn]  0}  ^oO 


2o6  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

AEva^'^',  Atv*,  T.  -Kriyfjq^. — 15.  Snja]  (S  Iv  tw  Tsfxsc  x^'f-'^PPOu?^*'*)  §'« 
Tou  xetiJLappou^  =  Snjnnmna.  The  former  reading  is  not  improb. — 7\h^h] 
is  a  gl.  or  the  corrupted  name  of  the  valley. — 3itt'vMi]  lacking  in  (5.  It 
is  better  to  om.  in  the  second  place  and  interpret  the  first  adverbially. 
— Niaxi]  05  xal  T51JI.TJV  =  •'Hni.  (S^  has  xal  t^^ayjv  ev  xfj  xuXm  -c^i;  9(ipaYYo?. 
xal  ivscTTpeti'a.  5tal  SifjlOov  Sta  xfji;  tcuXtji;  Fat.  It  is  difficult  to  say 
whether  this  is  one  of  ^'^  frequent  corrections  from  MT.  by  addition  or  a 
genuine  text. — 16.  a-ijJDn].  Rd.  with  (S  o\  cpuXaaaoyxeq  =  oncirn. — onnS] 
Tot?  evTt'tJ.0'?^***)  AeuizQciq^. — 0'':jdS]  om.  ^^,  but  the  combination  ann 
D''jJDi  is  common  in  Ne.  (48-  "  5'  7O  J*-  Dr.i""",*". — P""')']  f  may  be  an 
Aramaism;  cf.  lyo""!)?,  Ezr.  5^^;  the  mng.  is  the  same,  7ip  to  the  present. 
It  maybe  a  txt.  err.  for  nnj.'-i>'. — 17.  ixnj]  (g^Ax  is^Oijaav  =  unj. — 18. 
in]  xpbi;^  (^^n)  toOi;^^  i'^^),  irspl^  ("^J.'))  i^^'  is  correct,  as  it  is  used  with  ti, 
the  other  obj.  of  the  same  vb.  imx. — ncs'-i]  %a\  eka^^**  =  •mMi\  ^ 
shows  that  it  is  correcting  and  will  leave  no  doubt  about  the  sense: 
Tied  a'jTol  el%hv  piot. — anni]  (S^-  makes  a  separate  clause  and  reads  sg. 
xal  T)  x^'P  auTwv  st?  aYa66v.  (S^^**  makes  ai  x^'P^?  subj.  not  obj. 
Berth,  says:  "perhaps  the  vb.  should  be  pointed  as  a  pass.";  but  the 
pass,  does  not  elsw.  occur,  and  we  have  no  warrant  here  for  a  new  form. 
I  should  rd.  isini  with  05  and  point  "ipjn^j.  If  dhiti  were  the  obj.  it 
would  certainly  have  nt<  before  it. — 19.  irSj?  V2•'^].  Nowhere  else  is 
n73  followed  by  Sy;  it  usually  takes  direct  obj.,  though  occasionally  we 
find  '7.  (6^^**  has  y.al  rikQov  l(p'  ri\x&q,  i.  e.,  isn^i,  and  that  is  the  cor- 
rect text  (v.  5.).  (&^  has  here  also  the  original  (6  +  a  correction  from 
Heb. :  xars^povouv  Tjfiwv  y.a\  ■q'kQov  iif'  T]\xaq. — 20.  Dipj]  Cl^*'*  xaOapoi  = 
O'lpj.     ^  has  the  usual  dup.,  xaOapol  dvaa-uTjaotieOa. 


NE.  2,^-^'^'      THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  WORK  ON  THE  WALL. 

In  the  list  of  the  wall-builders  as  it  stands  in  the  text  there  are  39  names 
of  men,  of  whom  6  were  apparently  Lev.  (vv.  '^-^Oj  and  possibly  13  were 
pr.  There  were  five  companies  of  the  builders  who  are  named  only  by 
the  towns  in  which  they  live,  Jericho,  Hassenaah,  Tekoa,  Gibeon  and 
Mispah,  and  Zanoah.  The  genealogical  interest  is  very  marked.  In 
32  cases  the  father's  name  is  given,  and  in  5  instances  the  name  of  the 
grandfather  or  some  earlier  ancestor  is  added.  In  a  number  of  cases 
the  civil  office  held  by  the  builder  is  appended,  vv.  »•  "•  "-»• ".  It 
thus  appears  that  for  the  most  part  these  officials  are  grouped  together. 
As  in  other  lists,  there  is  frequent  repetition  of  the  same  name,  vv. 
*.  21;  4. 6. 30;  4. 29;  n.  14. 31;  II.  23,  Many  of  the  names  recur  in  other  lists  iu 
our  books. 

The  narrative  shows  but  a  poor  connection  with  2>'.  It  has  all  the 
appearance  of  an  independent  piece,  as  we  may  note  from  the  begin- 
ning "and  Eliashib  arose."    There  are  many  characteristics  of  the 


NEHEMIAH  3 '-22  207 

Chr.:  the  prominence  of  pr.  and  Lev.;  the  expressions  "and  his  breth- 
ren"; the  exact  genealogical  data;  the  mechanical  system;  repetition 
of  phrases  "and  by  his  hand,"  "set  up  its  doors,"  "repaired,"  etc.  See 
further  arguments  by  Mitchell,  JBL.  1903, ^"'^ 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  not  a  single  trace  of  N.  in  the  whole  pas- 
sage, though  it  is  assigned  to  N.  by  Berth.  Sieg.  and  many  others.  The 
statement  in  v.  ^^  connects  directly  with  2'8,  leaving  space  between  for 
the  visit  of  Sanb.  et  al.  (2"  '•).  Neh.  was  not  concerned  with  the  de- 
tails of  the  building  methods,  but  with  securing  suitable  protection  for 
the  city. 

The  section  is  needlessly  anticipative,  for  it  is  a  description  of  the 
complete  work,  whereas  v.  "  shows  that  much  was  yet  to  be  done,  and 
the  walls  were  not  finished  until  some  time  later.  Ace.  to  this  c.  all 
parts  were  carried  on  simultaneously,  whereas  N.  states  explicitly 
that  the  walls  were  finished  before  the  gates  were  touched,  6'.  The 
passage  is  obviously  quite  out  of  place,  and  would  come  in  better 
after  c.  6. 

Torrey  regards  the  whole  section  as  due  to  the  Chr.  (Comp."  '■). 
But  the  evidence  of  its  composite  character  is  convincing  to  the  con- 
trary. We  cannot  resist  the  evidence  of  the  use  of  "at  his,  or  their, 
hand"  in  vv.  ^-'^  and  "after  him"  in  vv.  i'-^^.  Other  indications  are 
pointed  out  in  the  notes.  The  Chr.'s  hand  is  indeed  evident  in  the 
editing,  but  not  in  the  composition.  We  are  constrained  then  to  sup- 
pose that  some  one  had  composed  an  account  of  the  building  of  the 
walls,  others  had  made  additions,  and  the  Chr.  combines,  edits,  and  as 
usual,  where  it  is  possible,  misplaces  his  material. 

The  account  in  general  may  be  quite  correct.  The  memoirs  agree 
very  closely  with  the  method  described  here.  There  were  certainly 
many  workers  who  lived  outside  of  Jerus.,  4^,  and  the  builders  were 
widely  scattered  on  the  walls,  4".  But  we  have  no  data  to  control  the 
details,  and  some  of  them  excite  suspicion. 

The  gates  mentioned  in  this  c.  are  ten  in  number,  as  appears  from 
the  following  list  in  which  all  the  other  references  are  cited':  (i)  the  sheep 
gate,  V.  1  12^9  Jn.  52;  (2)  the  fish  gate,  v.  =  12"  2  Ch.  ^3,'^  Zp.  i'»;  (3) 
the  old  gate,  v. «  12";  (4)  the  dung  gate,  v.  "  f-  2"  12";  (5)  the  valley 
gate,  V."  2"- 16  2  Ch.  26^;  (6)  the  fountain  gate,  v. '^  2"  12";  (7)  the 
water  gate  east,  v.  2«  12",  cf.  the  water  gate,  8»- s- '6;  (8)  the  horse 
gate,  v.  28  Je.  31";  (q)  the  east  gate,  v.  ^s;  (10)  the  gate  of  the  muster, 
v.  ^'. 

The  catalogue  is  manifestly  incomplete.  Tv/ice  a  "second  portion" 
is  mentioned  without  an  antecedent  first  portion  (vv.  "•  ^).  Sm.  sup- 
poses a  considerable  gap  before  v.  ",  basing  his  conclusion  on  a  com- 
parison with  12"'-  (Listen,"  ' ).  On  the  geographical  elements  in  this 
list  V.  also  Mey.  Ent.^"''  '■  "» "■  On  the  topography  v.  the  valuable 
article  by  Mitchell,  JBL,  igos,""^ ,  and  particularly  his  map,  p.  162. 


2o8  E2RA-NEHEMIAH 

1.  Eliashib  the  high  priest]  mentioned  often  in  our  books. 
Ezr.  io«  Ne.  320-  21  laio-  22. 23  134.  7. 28.  jn  13"  he  is  called  "the 
priest,"  but  in  1328,  as  here,  "the  high  priest."  His  son  was  a 
prominent  priest  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  Ezr.  10^.  According  to 
Ne.  12"  he  was  a  grandson  of  Jeshua  the  co-worker  of  Zerub- 
babel.  In  the  list  of  builders  the  names  of  the  priests  with  this 
exception  are  put  last,  w.  22-29;  but  Eliashib  is  named  first  on 
account  of  his  prominent  position. — Associated  with  him  in  the 
work  were  his  brethren  the  priests],  meaning  apparently  those 
belonging  to  his  own  course. — And  they  built  the  sheep  gate]. 
There  are  four  terms  for  the  building  operations,  "build,"  "lay 
beams,"  "erect,"  and  "repair,"  the  last  occurring  thirty-three 
times.  "Build"  is  found  here,  in  v.  2  twace,  and  in  w.  ^^-  ^*- '». 
Except  in  v.  2  it  has  always  "gate"  as  its  object.  Therefore  we 
may  conclude  that  the  work  described  in  v.  2  was  a  part  of  the 
erection  of  the  sheep  gate.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that 
"repair"  is  frequently  found  with  "gate"  as  object,  w.  ^-  "•  **-^^ 
The  sheep  gate  is  mentioned  only  in  Ne.  v.  ^2  12^9,  but  cf.  Jn. 
52.  It  was  on  the  north  of  the  temple  and  was  so  named  be- 
cause it  was  the  entrance  for  sacrificial  animals. — These  con- 
secrated it],  i.  e.,  the  gate.  Consecrating  a  gate,  especially  be- 
fore "they  erected  its  doors,"  arouses  suspicion.  The  appeal 
for  support  is  mainly  made  to  Solomon's  consecration  of  the 
court  before  the  temple  (i  K.  8®*),  but  that  was  done  because 
he  was  preparing  to  offer  sacrifices  there.  Doubtless  we  should 
read  "laid  its  beams,"  as  in  \r\'.^-  *.  The  change  was  due  to 
the  fact  that  consecrating  was  regarded  as  more  appropriate 
work  for  priests  than  laying  beams,  showing  the  trace  of  an 
editor  with  priestly  sympathies. — And  they  erected  its  doors,  its 
hinges  and  its  bars],  so  we  should  read  as  in  all  other  cases 
where  doors  are  mentioned.  For  hinge  v.  note  to  v.  ^.  In  the 
Chronicler's  fashion  we  have  an  anticipation,  for  in  6^  the  doors 
were  not  yet  built. — And  unto  the  tower  of  Hammeah  they  con- 
secrated it  unto  the  tower  of  Hananel].  There  could  scarcely  be 
a  gate  of  this  extent.  Moreover,  this  description  does  not  fit 
in  here,  because  it  refers  to  a  section  of  the  wall,  whereas 
Eliashib  and  his  fellow-priests  built  the  gate.     It  might  be 


NEHEMIAH   31-^2  209 

misplaced  from  v. '  or  some  other  section.  It  may  have  been 
inserted  here  from  12^^ — 2.  And  at  his  hand]  meaning  next 
to  him.  We  find  at  his  (or  their)  hand  in  vv.  ^-i^^,  and  "after 
him,"  to  express  the  same  idea  in  vv.  ^^-^^  (except  in  w.  ^^-"). 
This  proves  that  we  have  a  composite  production,  as  a  single 
writer  would  either  have  used  the  same  term  throughout  or 
mixed  the  words  indiscriminately.  In  both  cases  in  this  verse 
we  should  read  at  their  hand,  for  the  antecedent  is  plural. — The 
men  of  Jericho].  In  Ezr.  2  before  place-names  we  found  both 
"men  of"  and  "sons  of";  in  this  list  we  have  further  the  gen- 
tilic  Tekoites,  w.  ^-  '^'^,  and  "inhabitants  of,"  v.  ^*.  It  appears 
that  companies  came  from  some  of  the  Judean  towns  to  aid  in 
the  wall-building.  It  is  not  stated  whether  they  were  giving 
their  service  from  patriotic  motives  or  whether  they  were  work- 
ing for  wages. — Zaccur]  recurs  in  our  books,  Ezr.  8^^  Qr.  Ne.  io>' 
J 235  j^i^,  but  there  is  no  certain  identification. — 3.  The  fish 
gate]  i2''9  Zp.  i^°  2  Ch.  33'^  f.  It  was  probably  the  market-place 
where  the  Tyrians  sold  their  fish,  13I''.  It  lay  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  city  (v.  Mar.  on  Zp.  i'",  GAS.  Jer.  i,^^^. — The  sons 
of  Hassenaah]  v.  Ezr,  2^^. — 4.  Meremoth]  is  repeated  in  v.  ^i  and 
with  the  same  pedigree.  The  text  is  wrong  in  one  case  or  the 
other.  The  same  person  is  named  as  a  travelling  companion  of 
Ezra,  Ezr,  8^^, — And  next  to  them].  We  should  expect  "him," 
but  as  we  note  from  v.  ^  the  pronouns  frequently  do  not  corre- 
spond with  the  antecedent,  an  evidence  of  confusion  in  the  text. 
— The  second  clause,  about  Meshullam  is  lacking  in  some  texts 
of  (&.  As  Meshullam  occurs  in  vv.  ^-  ^",  we  can  easily  dispense 
with  him  here.  In  v.  ^°  he  has  the  same  father,  but  the  grand- 
father is  not  given.  In  v.  ^  the  name  of  the  father  may  be  cor- 
rupt, or  that  may  be  a  different  person. — Zadok]  recurs  in  v.  ^^, 
but  the  father  is  different.— 5.  The  Tekoites].  Tekoa  was  the 
home  of  Amos  the  prophet  (Am.  i^).  It  is  on  the  border  of  the 
Judean  wilderness,  five  miles  south  of  Bethlehem. — But  their 
chiefs  did  not  bring  their  neck  into  the  service  of  their  lords].  The 
natural  inference,  especially  from  (S  {v.  i.),  is  that  the  governor 
of  Tekoa  was  interested  in  the  work  and  brought  a  band  of  the 
humble  classes  to  assist  him,  but  was  unable  to  induce  his  chiefs 


2 1 0  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

to  take  part.  "Bring  the  neck  unto,"  with  "yoke"  understood, 
is  found  in  Je.  27"  f-,  but  there  it  refers  to  the  submission  of  a 
conquered  people.  "Their  lords"  is  also  interpreted  to  mean 
Nehemiah  and  his  associates  (Berth.).  The  meaning  would  then 
be  that  while  the  lower  classes  of  Tekoa  responded  to  Nehemiah's 
call,  the  rulers  refused  to  recognise  his  authority.  As  but  four 
or  five  towns  are  mentioned  in  the  list,  it  would  appear  that  many 
other  towns  had  made  a  similar  refusal;  for  if  Nehemiah  called 
upon  some  of  the  neighbouring  villages  for  help,  he  would  cer- 
tainly have  called  upon  all,  and  of  such  towns  we  have  a  much 
larger  list  in  Ezr.  2  and  Ne.  ii^^  » — 6.  The  old  gate]  mentioned 
also  in  12^3,  is  supposed  to  have  been  on  the  northern  side  of 
the  city  and  to  the  west  of  the  fish  gate.  Mitchell  reads  "  the 
gate  of  the  old  pool"  (JBL.  1903,^2  ff). — Repaired  Joiada  and 
Meshullam].  We  should  expect  "built,"  as  in  w.  i- ',  but  we 
find  "  repaired,"  with  gates  as  object,  in  w.  ^^-  "■  ^^.  It  is  tempt- 
ing to  suppose  that  these  particular  gates  had  not  been  entirely 
destroyed,  and  so  "repaired,"  rather  than  "built,"  is  an  accu- 
rate description  of  the  work  done.  But  as  the  statement  is  ev- 
erywhere that  Jerusalem's  "gates  had  been  burned  with  fire,"  we 
are  warned  against  assuming  that  four  out  of  the  six  were  only 
damaged.  It  may  be  that  the  author,  having  started  with  "  re- 
paired," repeats  it  without  much  consideration  for  exactness.  It 
is  possible  that  the  expression  "its  gates  biimed"  may  be  a  gen- 
eral rather  than  an  exact  description. — 7.  Meletiah  the  Gibeonite 
and  Jadon  the  Meronothite,  the  men  of  Gibeon  and  Mispah].  Sa- 
chau  (p.*)  identifies  \']1'^  with  the  "''iT'  of  Pap.  i.  Here  we  find 
men  designated  by  their  homes  instead  of  by  their  fathers.  Me- 
ronothite, elsewhere  only  i  Ch.  2'j^,  is  unknown.  If  "men  of 
Gibeon  and  Mispah"  is  an  appositive  clause,  then  we  should 
probably  read  Mispite,  or  with  Mey.  read  Meronoth  instead  of 
Mispah  {Ent}°^).  But  as  this  is  the  only  place  where  we  find  this 
use  of  gentilic  names,  and  as  the  whole  verse  is  lacking  in  the  best 
texts  of  d,  we  look  upon  it  with  suspicion.  Mispah  is  mentioned 
in  vv.  '^-  ^'. — 0/  the  jurisdiction  of  the  governor  beyond  the  River]. 
This  would  refer  to  the  satrap  of  the  Syrian  province.  As  Gibeon 
and  Mispah  were  in  Benjamin  and  close  to  Jerusalem,  it  is  hard 


NEHEMIAH   3I-32  211 

to  see  why  they  were  any  more  under  his  authority  than  Jericho. 
GAS.  argues  that  the  satrap  of  the  province  sometimes  held 
his  court  at  Mispah  {Jer.  ii,^^^).  Further  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  KD3  means  jurisdiction.  The  text  of  (S  which  has  this 
passage  renders :  unto  the  throne  of  the  governor  beyond  the  Enna. 
I  have  no  idea  what  Enna  stands  for,  but  this  rendering  makes 
the  passage  descriptive  of  the  part  of  the  wall  repaired  by  these 
men.  We  should  then  have  to  suppose  that  some  governor  main- 
tained a  residence  or  office  in  Jerusalem,  a  supposition  by  no 
means  improbable,  and  such  a  place  would  be  a  well-understood 
designation.  Mitchell  renders  "the  seat  of  the  governor  be- 
yond the  River,"  and  holds  that  the  clause  defines  which  of  the 
numerous  Mispahs  is  meant  (JBL.  1903,1'**  ^■). — 8.  Uzziel]  is 
a  common  Hebrew  name,  but  Harahiah,  his  father's  name,  is 
not  found  elsewhere,  and  in  spite  of  the  divine  name,  which  is  a 
part  of  it,  its  root  is  unknown.  But  we  should  probably  read 
Barakiah  {v.  i.). — Hananiah  the  son  of  the  ointment-makers],  i.  e., 
one  engaged  in  that  craft  {cf.  v.  ^0-  Probably  the  word  ren- 
dered "ointment-makers"  is  a  disguised  form  of  the  name  of 
Hananiah's  father.  Mey.  argues  that  these  men  are  denoted  by 
their  trade  because  they  had  no  connection  with  a  family  group 
(Ent.^^^). — And  they  abandoned  Jerusalem  as  far  as  the  broad  wall] 
makes  no  sense;  "fortified"  of  EV^.  is  unwarranted.  The  mod- 
ern authorities  generally  connect  with  a  late  Hebrew  word  and 
give  the  meaning  "repair"  or  "complete."  That  gives  good 
sense,  at  all  events.  It  may  be,  however,  that  the  reference  is 
to  some  part  of  the  old  city  that  was  not  included  in  the  new, 
and  "abandoned"  would  then  be  right.  Mitchell  suggests  "en- 
close" (JBL.  1903,1^-).  Our  information  is  too  slight,  however, 
to  determine  positively  what  the  words  do  imply.  The  broad 
wall  according  to  12^*  was  that  portion  lying  between  the  gate  of 
Ephraim  and  the  tower  of  the  ovens.  From  its  position  in  this 
passage,  though,  it  would  appear  to  be  a  part  of  the  wall  between 
the  old  gate,  v.  ^,  and  the  valley  gate,  v.  ^^.  It  is  far  from  cer- 
tain, however,  that  we  have  a  systematic  description,  and  our 
ignorance  of  the  topography  is  still  very  great.  Ryle  suggests 
that  it  was  this  part  which  was  destroyed  by  Amaziah  and  which 


212  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Hezekiah  strengthened  (2  K.  14"  2  Ch.  32^). — 9.  Rephaiah  the 
son  of  Hur  [a  Calebite  according  to  Mey.  En/."^],  was  ruler  of 
half  the  district  of  Jerusalem].  Following  B  vici  (for  half-district) 
the  passage  is  interpreted  to  mean  that  Jerusalem  was  divided 
into  two  districts  or  wards,  of  which  Rephaiah  rules  one  and 
Shallum  the  other,  v.  ^-.  But  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  far 
from  certain,  and  the  Greek  rendering  is  "  the  country  around," 
so  that  the  domain  of  these  men  was  not  the  city,  but  the  sub- 
urbs (so  GAS.  Jer.  i,^^^).  The  latter  is  the  more  probable  ex- 
planation. In  this  chapter  eight  such  divisions  of  the  Judean 
province  are  named :  two  about  the  cities  of  Jerusalem,  Mispah, 
vv.  ^^- 1^,  Keilah,  vv.  ^^  ^-j  one  about  Beth-haccerem,  v.  1*,  and  one 
of  the  two  about  Beth-zur,  v.  ^''.  (On  these  districts  v.  Mey. 
Ent}^^  2).  It  is  plain  from  the  mention  of  these  places  that  so 
far  as  possible  the  people  from  the  whole  province  of  Judah  were 
enlisted  in  the  great  undertaking. — 10.  Jedaiah]  cannot  be 
identified  with  any  other  person  in  our  books,  though  the  name 
may  be  a  shortened  form  of  Jedaiah  (Ezr.  2^^  Ne.  ii^°  12*  '•  ^*-  ^i. 
Mey.  thinks  that  the  name  of  his  father,  Harumaph,  indicates 
a  non- Jewish  clan  {Ent}").  Berth,  gives  the  meaning  "with 
a  split  nose"  {Anhang,^^),  thus  making  it  a  Hebrew  name, 
Harum-aph.  That  could  only  be  a  nickname  acquired  in  later 
life. — Even  before  his  house].  The  part  of  the  wall  repaired  by 
Jedaiah  lay  in  front  of  his  own  house,  which  was  probably  on  or 
near  the  wall.  Naturally  he  would  be  especially  interested  in 
the  restoration  of  the  part  of  the  wall  which  would  insure  him 
protection.  We  find  the  same  expression  in  vv.  ^^-  2*-  ^9,  cf.  v.  ^''. 
It  is  likely  that  every  builder  who  had  a  residence  in  Jerusalem 
was  assigned  the  part  of  the  wall  nearest  his  home. — Hattush 
the  son  of  Hashabneiah]  Ezr.  8^  Ne.  10^  12^. — 11.  A  second  por- 
tion repaired  Malkiiah  the  son  of  Harim  and  Hasshub  the  son 
of  Pahath-Moab,  and  unto  the  tower  of  the  furnaces]  or  ovens, 
Mitchell,  JBL,  1903,128  »• 

"Second  portion"  recurs  in  vv.  "■  2"-  "•  "•  "■ '",  but  in  all  those  cases 
as  obj.,  the  sentence  having  the  regular  intr.  "after  him."  In  this 
V.  "second  portion"  stands  in  place  of  the  usual  "and  next  to  him." 
The  more  general  term  used  in  RV.,  "another  portion,"  is  inadmissible. 


NEHEMIAH  31-22  213 

The  ordinal  means  second  and  nothing  else.  We  should  infer,  therefore, 
that  certain  large  sections  of  the  wall  were  divided  into  two  parts,  and 
a  gang  of  workmen  assigned  to  each  part.  But  then  it  seems  incredible 
that  the  iirst  portion  is  never  mentioned  at  all,  and  that  "second  por- 
tion" recurs  without  any  intervening  assignment,  vv.  i'-^'.  It  is  to 
be  noted,  however,  that  in  all  of  the  cases,  exc.  v.  3",  where  this  desig- 
nation is  used,  we  have  a  fuller  description  of  the  particular  section  of 
the  wall.  The  words  have  also  been  interpreted  to  mean  that  these 
particular  builders  were  esp.  energetic  or  had  a  larger  force  of  helpers, 
and  that  after  completing  their  first  assignment  they  undertook  a 
second  portion.  This  view  is  supported  by  the  repetition  of  the  names 
in  vv.  "■  27,  cf.  vv.  <  '\  But  other  names  recur  without  any  mention  of 
a  second  portion,  and  in  four  of  the  six  cases  before  us  there  is  no  re- 
currence of  the  name.  About  the  only  certain  inference  is  that  the 
Chr.  has  after  all  his  labours  left  us  but  an  imperfectly  intelligible  de- 
scription of  the  building  operations. 

Pahath-Moab]  (v.  Ezr.  2^)  is  surely  a  clan-name,  suggesting 
that  we  may  have  clan -names  all  through  the  chapter.  But 
as  most  of  the  heads  of  the  genealogies  are  not  known  to  us, 
in  spite  of  our  formidable  lists,  the  suggestion  is  to  be  taken 
cautiously. — The  tower  of  the  furnaces]  or  ovens  is  mentioned 
in  12^^  as  next  to  the  broad  wall  (v.  *),  and  between  the  gate  of 
Ephraim  and  the  valley  gate.  "Unto  the  tower"  is  based  on 
(S  and  is  doubtless  correct  (Guthe);  for  the  second  portion 
could  not  be  the  tower,  but  the  section  of  wall  adjoining. — 12. 
Shallum]  is  a  common  name,  but  that  of  his  father,  Hallohesh, 
is  found  elsewhere  only  in  lo^^  It  means  charmer  or  magician; 
Mey.  argues  that  it  is  an  appellative  clan-name,  and  marks  a 
family  which  had  remained  in  Judah  rather  than  one  coming 
from  the  exile  {Ent }'"'').  Shallum  was  ruler  of  the  other  part  of 
the  district  about  Jerusalem  {v.  s.  v.  ^). — He  and  his  daughters]  is 
regarded  by  Mey.  as  a  corruption  for  and  its  daughters,  i.  e., 
its  hamlets  {Ent}°'').  But  if  this  is  the  sense  we  might  render 
it  [Jerusalem]  and  its  hamlets,  making  the  district  over  which 
Shallum  ruled  include  both  a  part  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  sur- 
rounding country. 

"Daughters"  is  a  regular  term  for  the  hamlets  which  grow  up  about 
a  city  and  which  are  dependent  upon  it,  11"-".     Ryle  prefers  a  literal 


214  EZRA-NEHEMIAH  . 

interpretation  that  Shallum's  daughters  aided  him  in  the  work.  But 
as  women  in  the  East  were  quite  sure  to  have  a  large  share  in  such  work 
as  this,  their  especial  mention  here  is  unnecessary.  Against  the  other 
view  it  may  be  urged  that  a  soHtary  mention  of  hamlets  is  inexplicable. 
Berth,  says  it  would  be  easiest  to  reject  the  words  but  that  such  a 
course  is  arbitrary.     The  meaning  is  really  unknown. 

13.  Hanun]  recurs  in  v.  ^"  among  the  priests,  but  there  is  no 
reason  for  identifying  the  two.  From  the  fact  that  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Zanoah]  collaborated  with  him,  he  may  have  been  a 
resident  of  that  town.  Sieg.  says  he  was  the  principal  ofi&cer 
of  the  town. 

Zanoah  is  in  the  list  of  postex.  Jewish  towns,  ii'°,  cf.  Jos.  15^^  i 
Ch.  4>'.  It  is  located  13  miles  west  of  Jerus.  There  was  prob.  a 
large  company  of  the  Zanoites,  in  spite  of  the  considerable  distance 
which  they  came;  for  they  built  both  the  valley  gate  and  the  section 
of  the  wall  between  that  and  the  dung  gate  (v.  on  2 '3).  This  section 
was  1,000  cubits;  and  roughly  speaking  that  would  be  a  quarter  of  a 
mile.  Hence  some  have  doubted  whether  one  body  would  accomplish 
so  large  a  portion,  and  have  interpreted  the  words  as  a  parenthetical 
topographical  description,  giving  the  distance  between  the  gates.  But 
the  expression  is  too  specific,  and  a  thousand  cubits  on  the  wall,  to  ad- 
mit of  such  a  mng.  It  may  be  that  some  parts  of  the  wall  were  less 
damaged  than  others,  and  so  could  be  easily  and  quickly  repaired. 
We  note  that  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  it  is  meant  in  i^  that  the_ walls 
were  breached  or  broken  down. 

14.  The  dung  gate*]  itself  was  repaired  or  rebuilt  by.  Malchi- 
jah  the  son  of  Rekab  ruler  of  the  Beth-hakkarem  district].  Mal- 
chijah,  with  other  fathers,  is  mentioned  also  in  vv.  "■  3'.  It 
is  naturally  a  common  name,  meaning  "Yahweh  is  piy  king." 
— Beth-hakkarem]  means  vineyard  house.  From  Je.  6^  it  must 
have  been  south  of  Jerusalem  beyond  Tekoa,  and  so  not  be- 
tween the  latter  place  and  Bethlehem  as  Ryle  states. — He  built 
it  and  set  up].  Making  a  slight  change  and  a  restoration  from 
(^,  we  get  a  better  text:  he  and  his  sons,  and  they  made  its  beams 
and  set  them  up,  v.  i. — 15.  The  fountain  gate]  follows  the  dung 
gate  in  2^^  ^-j  g.  v. — Shallum  the  son  of  Kal-hozeh].  Kal-hozeh 
means  "every  seer";  Mey.  says  it  is  not  a  personal  name,  but 

•On  the  prob.  location  of  this  gate  v.  GAS.  Jer.  i,'". 


NEHEMIAH   3I-32  215 

probably  the  clan  designation  of  a  Calebite  guild  of  soothsayers 
{Ent}^'^).  In  11^  this  name  occurs  as  that  of  the  grandfather 
of  one  of  the  prominent  Jerusalemites,  and  there  it  is  surely 
used  as  a  personal  name. — Ruler  of  the  Mis  pah  district].  Work- 
ers from  Mispah  have  already  been  mentioned,  v.  ^  In  view 
of  V.  ^^  we  may  read  with  Mey.,  ruler  of  half  the  Mispah  dis- 
trict, but  as  Ezer  is  there  called  simply  ruler  of  Mispah,  it  may 
be  that  he  governed  the  city  and  Shalluni  the  surrounding 
country. — He  built  it].  Perhaps  we  should  emend  as  in  v.  ": 
he  and  his  sons;  though  we  lack  here  the  support  of  (B,  we 
have  the  fact  that  "set  up"  is  plural  in  the  original  text. — 
Then  we  are  told  that  Shallum  repaired  also  a  section  of  the 
wall,  a  section  very  minutely  described:  and  the  wall  of  [or  from] 
the  pool  of  Siloam  at  the  king^s  garden  and  unto  the  stairs  descend- 
ing from  the  city  of  David].  The  pool  of  Shelah  or  Sheloah  in 
Is.  8®  is  the  same  as  the  Siloam  of  Jn.  9^-  ".  There  was  also  a 
town  of  Siloam,  Lu.  13^.  It  was  in  the  conduit  of  this  pool 
that  the  famous  Siloam  inscription  was  found.  Guthe  questions 
this  identification  {ZDPV.  1882,^1  '■).  The  king^s  garden  oc- 
curs in  2  K.  25^  Je.  39^  52^,  all,  however,  parallel  and  describ- 
ing the  route  by  which  Zedekiah  fled  from  the  defenceless  city. 
Stairs  of  the  city  of  David*  recurs  in  12"  as  being  near  the  foun- 
tain gate.  The  city  of  David  has  been  regarded  as  the  southern 
part  of  the  western  hill,  as  the  northern  portion,  and  as  the 
temple  hill,  which  last  Ryle  regards  as  established  by  this  pas- 
sage. In  spite  of  the  exact  description  of  this  section  of  wall, 
it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  locate  it  with  very  great  confidence. 
— 16.  Nehemiah  the  son  of  Azbuk,  the  ruler  of  half  the  district 
of  Beth-zur]  is  thus  carefully  differentiated  from  the  hero  of 
our  book.  He  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  nor  is  his  father. 
Beth-zur  is  in  the  list  of  Judean  towns,  Jos.  15^*,  and  among 
those  built  by  Rehoboam,  2  Ch.  11''.  Robinson  located  it  in 
the  modern  Beit-Sur,  about  twelve  miles  south  of  Jerusalem. 
So  GAS.  Jer.  i\,^^\  See  also  i  Mac.  429  ii«5  f-  147,  The  part 
of  the  wall  rebuilt  by  Nehemiah  is  also  elaborately  described: 
to  a  point  opposite  the  sepulchre  of  David,  and  to  the  artificial  pool 

♦5ee  Wright's  treatise,  JBL.  1897."'  ^■.  also  GAS.  Jer.  i,'». 


2 1 6  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

and  to  the  armoury].  We  find  the  unusual  expression,  literally, 
unto  before,  indicating  that  there  was  no  good  marking-point 
at  the  wall,  and  implying  that  the  tomb  of  David  was  some 
distance  away.  In  2  Ch.  32^^  we  find  "the  sepulchres  of  the 
sons  of  David"  given  as  the  burial-place  of  Hezekiah.  But 
see  Benzinger  in  loc.  This  royal  cemetery  was  in  the  city  of 
David,  v.  ^^,  where  David  himself  was  buried,  i  K.  2^". — The 
artificial  pool]  literally,  the  pool  that  was  made,  was  still  new,  ac- 
cording to  Sieg.  But  it  is  more  likely  to  be  the  reservoir  re- 
ferred to  in  Is.  22":  "You  made  a  reservoir  between  the  walls 
for  the  waters  of  the  old  pool." — House  of  the  heroes].  The 
location  is  unknown,  though  Guthe  proposes  a  place  southwest 
of  the  Virgin  spring  iZDPV.  1882,^^^).  It  must  have  been  the 
military  headquarters,  or  the  armoury.  B.-Rys.  regards  it  as  the 
residence  of  the  gate-watch,  in  which  case  it  would  be  witness 
of  the  late  date  of  this  passage;  but  it  is  very  probable  that 
the  watch  lived  in  their  homes.  As  before,  we  find  darkness 
rather  than  light  from  the  details  given.  As  the  text  stands, 
we  have  three  statements  about  the  terminating-point  of  Ne- 
hemiah's  work,  but  none  about  its  beginning.  As  Shallum's  sec- 
tion extended  to  the  city  of  David,  v.  '^,  we  should  probably  read 
from  the  sepulchres  of  David,  though  such  a  correction  is  purely 
conjectural. — 17-20  apparently  covers  the  account  of  the  labour 
of  the  Levites  who  took  part  in  the  work,  but  the  text  is  in  poor 
shape. — 17.  After  him  repaired  the  Levites:  Rehum  the  son  of 
Bani].  Then  we  expect  a  further  list  of  Levitical  names,  but 
the  narrative  goes  back  to  the  old  formula.  Both  Rehum  and 
Hashabiah  are  given  in  the  list  of  the  heads  of  the  people,  lo^^ 
Hashabiah  was  ruler  of  half  the  district  of  Keilah],  a  place  famous 
in  David's  early  history,  i  S.  23,  a  Judean  town,  near  the 
Philistine  border,  and  about  eight  miles  northwest  of  Hebron 
(GAS.  Hist.  Geog.^°).  Mey.  infers  that  Keilah  had  been  set- 
tled by  the  Levites  during  and  after  the  exile  (Ent."^). — For 
his  district].    AV.  in  his  part  is  unjustifiable. 

Ryle  interprets  as  distinguishing  the  part  he  represented  from  the  other 
part  named  in  v.  '«.  B.-Rys.  goes  so  far  as  to  argue  from  this  state- 
ment that  the  two  parties  from  the  Keilah  district  were  separated  from 


NEHEMIAH  3I-32  21 7 

each  other  in  their  work.  This  authority  also  sugg^ts  that  the  word 
implies  that  this  workman  participated,  not  as  a  Lev.,  but  as  the  ruler 
of  a  Keilah  district.  It  is  doubtful  about  his  being  a  Lev.  at  all,  and 
the  word  is  too  obscure  in  this  solitary  use  to  serve  as  a  good  basis  for 
such  large  inferences. 

18.  Their  brethren]  implies  a  preceding  list  of  Levites,  for 
the  antecedent  of  their  is  Levites. — Bawai  the  son  of  Henadad]. 
Henadad  was  a  Levite  chief,  v.-*  iqI"  Ezr.  3',  As  the  name 
means  Hadad  favours,  it  must  be  of  Aramaic  origin.  It  is  a 
strange  title  for  Levites  of  the  postexilic  age,  and  it  may  be 
an  old  clan-name. — Binnui,  as  v.  ^,  is  the  form  of  the  name 
adopted  by  Guthe  and  Berth.  But  son  of  Henadad  is  a  clan 
designation.  Moreover,  Binnui  is  among  the  priests.  Both 
priests  and  Levites  might  be  sons  of  Henadad,  for  that  name 
goes  back  to  a  time  when  the  two  offices  were  not  distinguished; 
but  they  would  not  be  confused  in  this  list. — 19.  Ezer  the  son 
of  Jeshua].  The  name  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  our  books. 
As  he  was  the  ruler  of  Mispah  (v.  on  v.  ^^),  he  was  probably  not 
connected  with  the  guild  of  Jeshua  the  associate  of  Zerubbabel. 
Indeed,  it  is  very  improbable  that  these  district  rulers  were 
Levites. 

We  note  here  a  changed  order  at  the  beginning:  and  then  repaired  at 
his  hand].  The  variation  is  prob.  a  scribal  error,  but  it  is  old,  for  it 
is  reproduced  in  C5.  The  description  of  this  second  section  is  very  ob- 
scure: from  opposite  the  ascent  of  the  arms,  the  corner].  The  corner, 
w.  20-  2<-  25^  2  Ch.  26',  is  a  local  name  well  known  to  the  author,  but 
not  clear  to  us.  (5  offers  two  readings:  the  tower  going  up  at  the  junction 
of  the  corner  ;  and  the  tower  of  the  ascent  of  the  arms  joining  at  the  corner 
behind  its  hill.  Now  it  is  impossible  to  make  sense  out  of  any  of  these 
readings.  Partly  aided  by  the  latter  Greek  text,  I  would  correct  and 
render:  from  opposite  the  armoury  to  the  corner  of  the  hill,  and  so  reaching 
a  definite  point,  the  northwest  corner  of  the  wall.  Mitchell  proposes 
past  the  armour  cltamber  to  the  corner  (JBL.  1903,'"). 

20.  Baruch  the  son  of  Zabbai],  or  Zakkai  as  Qr.  From  the 
corner]  of  the  hill,  v. ''  to  the  door  of  the  house  of  Eliashib  the  high 
priest],  who  was  the  first  builder  named,  v.  ^  This  house  was 
evidently  hard  by  the  wall,  and  near  the  corner.  From  the 
prominence  of  the  occupant,  the  house  would  be  well  known. 


2 1 8  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

The  proximity  of  the  high  priest's  residence  indicates  that 
"the  hill"  of  V.  1^  is  the  temple  hill.  The  mention  of  the  door 
may  mean  that  EHashib's  house  was  too  wide  to  serve  as  a 
defining  mark,  or  that  the  description  has  become  very  exact. 
— 21.  The  same  person  mentioned  in  v.  *  is  here  appropriately 
described  as  repairing  a  second  portion,  and  still  further  ap- 
propriately it  was  a  very  small  portion,  only  that  fronting  on  a 
part  of  Eliashib's  house:  from  the  door  of  EliashiVs  house  to  the 
end  of  Eliashib^s  house].  To  be  sure,  there  may  have  been  a 
bad  piece  of  wall  at  this  point  which  required  much  labour. 
— 22.  The  priests,  the  men  of  the  plain].  The  plain  is  a  tech- 
nical name  for  the  oval  plain  of  the  Jordan.  The  full  designa- 
tion is  the  plain  (or  oval)  of  the  Jordan,  Gn.  13'°,  but  naturally 
Jordan  could  easily  be  dispensed  with.  "The  river"  or  "the 
town"  has  a  specific  sense  in  every  locality.  The  brief  passage 
implies  that  this  plain  was  especially  the  abode  of  priests.  The 
statement  is  incomplete,  as  there  is  no  description  of  the  part 
of  the  wall  repaired  by  these  priests. — 23.  Benjamin  and 
Hasshub  apparently  lived  together  opposite  their  house]  and 
their  house  adjoined  Azariah's,  for  the  latter  also  built  opposite 
his  house  and  from  that  point  Binnui  repaired,  v.  ^*.  If  v.  ^^ 
is  misplaced,  as  it  may  well  be,  then  the  jointly  occupied  house 
would  adjoin  the  residence  of  the  high  priest. — 24.  On  Bin- 
nui V.  s.  V.  1*.  The  part  he  repaired  is  described  as  extending 
from  the  house  of  Azariah,  v.  ^^,  to  the  corner  and  to  the  turn].  If 
we  have  reached  a  corner  or  turn  in  the  wall,  it  must  be  a  differ- 
ent one  from  that  mentioned  in  w.  ^^-  ^^.  Naturally  the  wall 
had  more  than  one  corner. — 25.  At  the  beginning  we  must 
supply  after  him  repaired.  Neither  Palal  nor  his  father  Uzai  oc- 
curs elsewhere  in  OT.  The  section  is  described  thus:  from  op- 
posite the  corner  {i.  e.,  the  corner  or  turn  of  v.  ^^]  and  the  tower 
which  goes  down  from  the  upper  palace  which  is  at  the  court  of  the 
guard].  The  text  is  obviously  wrong;  for  the  tower  is  not  the 
same  as  the  corner;  and  there  were  not  two  royal  palaces  in 
Jerusalem,  an  upper  and  a  lower.  With  (^  we  get  intelligibility: 
from  opposite  the  corner  of  the  tower  which  projects  from  the  royal 
palace  above  the  court  of  the  guard.    The  end  of  the  section  is 


NEHEMIAH   3'-32  219 

described  in  v.  ^^. — Pedaiah  the  son  of  Pavosh],  or  of  the  clan  of 
Parosh,  Ezr,  2^,  is  misplaced.  The  word  "repaired"  is  lacking 
and  the  names  interrupt  the  description  of  the  section  repaired 
by  Palal. — 26.  Now  the  Neth'mini  were  living  in  Opkel],  a  par- 
enthetic expression  which  has  strayed  from  its  original  place 
(v.  Ezr.  2«,  and  on  Ophel,  GAS.  Jer.  i,^^^).  It  would  naturally 
come  in  where  Ophel  has  been  mentioned.  The  name  occurs 
at  the  end  of  v.  "^^  and  to  that  place  these  words  should  be  trans- 
posed. Then  we  have,  not  a  further  description  of  the  abode 
of  the  Nethinim,  but  the  missing  terminus  belonging  to  v.  ^s. 
As  our  text  stands,  we  have:  unto  opposite  the  water  gate  on  the 
east  and  the  projecting  tower].  As  the  water  gate  was  in  the  wall, 
"  opposite  "  is  out  of  the  question.  ^'  offers  us  quite  a  different 
text:  unto  the  garden  of  the  gate  which  is  in  Ophel  on  the  east. 
The  projecting  tower  is  used  for  both  termini  of  Palal's  section, 
and  as  it  serves  as  the  initial  point  for  the  Tekoites'  second  sec- 
tion, that  must  be  right.  Probably  it  should  be  connected  with 
Ophel  thus:  on  the  east  of  the  projecting  tower].  According  to  the 
Talmud,  the  water  gate  was  so  named  because  water  was  carried 
from  the  Virgin  spring  through  this  gate  to  the  temple  at  the 
Feast  of  Booths.  Before  it  there  was  a  plaza,  S^-  ^-  1^,  used  for 
assemblies.  From  the  term  in  12"  it  was  evidently  in  the  east 
wall. — 27.  After  him  repaired  the  Tekoites  a  second  portion  (cf. 
V.  ^)  from  the  great  projecting  tower  even  to  the  wall  of  Ophel]. 
This  overhanging  tower  was  a  prominent  spot,  and  must  have 
survived  the  catastrophes  which  had  befallen  Jerusalem,  as  it 
would  not  have  been  rebuilt  by  the  new  community.  Restor- 
ing the  text  and  transposing  in  vv.  ""-^,  as  shown  above  to  be 
necessary,  we  get  the  following:  (25)  After  him  repaired  Palal  the 
son  of  Uzai  from  opposite  the  corner  of  the  tower  which  projects 
from  the  royal  palace  above  the  court  of  the  guard,  (26)  unto  the 
garden  of  the  gate  which  is  in  Ophel  to  the  east  of  the  projecting 
tower.  (27)  After  him  repaired  the  Tekoites  a  second  portion  from 
opposite  the  great  projecting  tower  and  to  the  wall  of  Ophel.  (26*) 
(Now  the  Nethinim  were  living  in  Ophel)  (25'')  After  them  re- 
paired Pedaiah  the  son  of  Parosh. 

28.  Above  the  horse  gate]  cf.  Je.  31*",  from  which  it  appears  to 


220  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

have  been  near  the  brook  Kidron,  repaired  the  priests  each  one 
opposite  his  house].  Evidently  this  was  a  part  of  the  city  oc- 
cupied chiefly  by  priests.  It  may  be  the  very  section  which 
Jeremiah  said  would  become  holy  unto  Yahweh  (31*°). — 29. 
Zadok  the  son  of  Immer]  cf.  v.  ^,  must  be  a  priest. — Shemaiah 
the  son  of  Shekaniah  was  the  keeper  of  the  east  gate].  This  may  be 
the  gate  described  in  v.  ^s  as  the  east  water  gate.  One  Greek 
MS.  reads  the  east  house.  The  name  Shemaiah  occurs  often  in 
our  lists,  but  we  cannot  identify  this  builder  with  any  other. 
As  the  name  means  Yahweh  has  heard  [my  prayer],  it  would 
naturally  be  given  to  children  born  in  answer  to  a  woman's  fer- 
vent prayers.  We  may  recall  the  case  of  Hannah  (i  S.  i).- — 
30.  A  Hananiah]  was  mentioned  in  v.  *  as  one  of  the  ointment- 
makers.  This  would  be  the  same  man,  if  second  portion  {v.  s. 
V. ")  were  to  be  strictly  pressed.  Hanun  the  sixth  son  of  Zalaph]. 
Here  we  have  an  unparalleled  particularity  in  the  genealogy, 
and  an  assurance  that  Zalaph  is  not  a  clan-name,  but  the  name 
of  the  actual  father  of  Hanun.  Guthe,  however,  thinks  that 
"sixth"  is  a  corruption  for  the  abode  of  Hanun.  A  Hanun  is 
mentioned  in  v.  ^^  in  connection  with  the  inhabitants  of  Zanoah. 
— Meshullam]  with  the  same  father  is  named  in  v.  *.  Perhaps 
it  is  meant  here  to  describe  a  second  portion  built  by  him  op- 
posite his  chamber].  Meshullam  did  not  have  a  house,  but  only 
a  room.  As  Meshullam  was  probably  a  priest,  this  room  would 
be  in  the  temple. — 31.  We  should  probably  read  Malchijah 
one  of  the  goldsmiths.  Unto  the  house  of  the  Nethinim  and  of 
the  traders].  The  Nethinim  dwelt  in  Ophel,  v.  ^^^  and  apparently 
had  a  house  there  in  which  they  lived  in  common.  The  ad- 
dition of  and  of  the  traders  is  suspicious.  If  the  text  is  correct 
the  reference  would  be  not  to  the  residence,  but  to  the  ware- 
house of  the  merchants.  Opposite  the  gate  of  the  muster],  a 
gate  not  elsewhere  mentioned,  may  be  a  gate  near  which  mili- 
tary enrolments  were  made,  but  the  matter  is  hopelessly  ob- 
scure, as,  for  that  matter,  is  all  this  long  description.  The  text 
is  probably  wrong.  And  unto  the  ascent  of  the  tower].  Another 
bend  in  the  wall  on  a  hill  is  probably  meant,  but  (&  has  to  the 
middle  of  the  bend,  which  is  somewhat  clearer. 


NEHEMIAH   3'-32  221 

32.  At  the  beginning  of  this  v.  we  find  the  Massoretic  note  "the 
middle  of  the  book,"  showing  that  Ezr.  and  Ne.  were  reckoned  as  one. 
By  actual  space  we  are  quite  past  the  middle,  but  the  Massorites 
counted  by  vv. 

Then  follows  a  description  of  a  section  of  the  wall  repaired 
by  two  guilds,  without  specifying  any  individuals,  the  goldsmiths 
and  the  traders  between  the  ascent  of  the  turn  and  the  sheep  gate], 
(&  gives  a  variant  between  the  ascent  of  the  sheep  gate,  but  this 
is  defective,  as  it  gives  but  one  terminus.  This  brings  us 
around  to  the  point  at  which  we  began,  viz.,  the  sheep  gate,  v.  i, 
showing  that  at  least  in  theory  we  have  been  carried  around  the 
whole  circumference  of  the  wall. 

1.  imcnp],  ace.  to  Berth,  and  Torrey,  is  without  an  obj.  in  ^;  but 
that  is  only  true  in  v. «,  and  then  only  in  ^^^.  But  with  Torrey  we 
should  rd.  innp  as  in  vv.  '•  «.  In  v. "  it  is  better  with  Kent  to  om. 
the  word  altogether.  Kittel  changes  iniifip^  to  ^T\r\p. — rnnSi]  should 
be  followed  by  vnn^i  vSipjsi  as  in  vv.  =•  ^-  "•  "•  's. — vSiyjci]  has  been  cor- 
rupted into  SiJD-vv — 2.  (S^A**  u'twv,  shows  'J2  for  ua  and  nj2,  and  it' 
for  n\  ua  is  indeed  difficult,  for  it  should  have  an  obj.,  and  if  a  section 
of  the  wall  is  intended,  pnnn  would  be  the  proper  term.  But  it  is  hard 
to  make  good  sense  out  of  (&. — 3.  ^r\'\-^p\  2^  v. «  2  Ch.  34"  Ps.  104=  f. 
From  the  infrequent  use  Torrey's  contention  that  the  word  is  charac- 
teristic of  the  Chr.  is  not  sustained.  It  is  called  a  denominative  from 
mi|-i,  "rafter,"  "beam,"  BDB.  Ges.^,  and  the  mng.  given  is  "lay 
beams."  In  Ch.  that  mng.  will  not  serve,  though  RV.  "make  beams" 
may  pass.  (&  renders  aTefaJ^ctv,  once  axexal^etv,  "to  cover";  so  B 
texerunt.  If  a  denominative,  it  must  refer  to  rafters  or  roof  as  Gn. 
19'.  The  mng.  here  is  the  putting  of  the  roof  over  the  gates. — iTiny 
CS^x  Ivsii-^aaav  =  np,  but  this  is  prob.  a  scribal  error  for  eaxtjaav. — 
Si^jjd]  is  given  the  mng.  bolt;  (&  xlsiGpov,  H  sera.  The  word  occurs 
outside  of  this  c.  only  in  Ct.  5^  Dt.  33",  for  a  different  pointing  does 
not  make  a  different  word.  But  holts  does  not  fit  the  case  here,  as 
it  could  not  be  differentiated  from  bars,  and  would  be  needlessly  rep- 
etitious, as  if  the  chief  concern  were  the  fastenings.  The  vb.  Syj 
means  to  fasten  on  a  sandal,  whence  Siyjo  would  be  that  by  which  a 
sandal  is  fastened,  therefore  thong  or  strap.  Now  that  which  binds  on 
a  door  is  not  a  bolt,  but  the  hinges  or  straps.  Indeed,  we  have  the 
technical  term  "strap-hinges."  With  <S  we  should  rd.  as  in  v.  • 
vSijjjDi,  so  vv.  "•  "•  15. — 4.  pinn]  occurs  in  this  c.  2,3  t.  besides  v.  ",  where 
the  wrong  pointing  gives  Pi.  In  (S^^^'  we  have  xaxlaxev  in  vv.  <•  '  and 
expdixT]aav  elsw.;  ^  has  expaTotfcouE  exc.  v.  ".     <S  may  have  rd.  the  vb. 


2  22  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

?nx. — (gB  lacks  the  second  clause. — 5.  onn>ix]  was  transliterated  by 
(gBAN  (i3(,jpTQ^.  This  shows  the  same  text  and  the  word  is  common; 
the  transliteration  may  be  due  to  the  obscurity  of  the  passage. — maj?3 
oh^jin]  ^S-'^'*  elq  SouXet'av  a'JTwv;  ^  Iv  Tfj  SouXef?  tou  xupfou. — 6.  njB'^n]. 
Kittel  suggests  ri:sfari,  presumably  on  the  basis  of  Zp.  i'"  and  Ne.  ii'. 
But  we  could  hardly  understand  a  loose  term,  the  gate  of  the  second  half 
of  the  city,  where  so  many  other  gates  are  specifically  named.  (8  trans- 
literates as  n.  p.  'laava,  thus  bearing  witness  to  our  text.  V  veterem. 
— 7.  Mey.  puts  i  before  'K'Jn  (£h^.  "s-  i). — \-inDn]  i  Ch.  27"  t  <8^ 
MTjpwvaeatoq;  but  in  Ch.  ex  Mspdewv  (MocpaOwv^). — ndjS]  <S^  ?u?  t. 
epivoj,  i.  e.,  NDo  ny. — lyjn]  ^^  toO  Ewa.  The  v.  is  wanting  in  (6^^**. 
— 8.  nimn].  As  mn  is  unknown,  we  may  have  an  error  of  the  text. 
(gBAN  lacks  first  clause,  and  (6^  has  Bap.-txfou  =  n^ana,  a  good  Heb. 
name. — dibiix]  could  not  be  in  app.  with  "Uzziel,"  and  as  this  guild 
comes  in  at  v. ",  the  word  must  be  omitted  here. — D>n|-nn]  m.  only 
here;  <&^^,  'Iwotxefpi,  Pwxeet'tJi'^,  twv  [lupstj^tiv^,  H  pigmentarii. — laryi] 
(S^  eerjxav,  but  that  represents  thirty-six  Heb.  words,  though  usu- 
ally DT,  which  would  not  help  us  much.  In  Prov.  8'«  this  word  rep- 
resents try,  and  so  we  might  rd.  ir;j>i,  and  they  strengthened,  implying 
that  the  wall  was  standing,  but  in  a  weakened  state.  Sieg.  suggests 
nrNii,  i.  e.,  they  surrounded  Jerus.  [with  a  wall]  as  far  as  the  broad  wall. 
Most  authorities  regard  aij?  as  a  technical  building  term,  the  exact 
mng.  of  which  is  unknown,  but  may  be  "pave,"  "repair,"  "complete" 
(^cf.  Ges.^  BDB.  and  v.  s.).  The  lexicons  separate  the  word  from  the 
regulars?;?.  But  if  the  mng.  is  "repair,"  we  should  expect  the  usual 
prnn.  If  the  text  is  sound,  then  we  have  further  witness  to  an  older 
story  underlying  the  present  composition. — 9.  "Tin-p]  om.  ^^^,  while 
^  adds  a  link  between  Rephaiah  and  Hur:  ulbq  Sst^avfou  utou  Soup 
(nix'p). — iSfl]  mng.  district  or  portion  is  found  only  in  this  c,  where 
it  occurs  8  t.  (S  renders  xsptxtopo?,  the  country  around  Jerus.,  and  not 
Jerus.  itself. — 11.  n>ja>  mc]  xal  Seu-repoq'^A'*. — nxi]  xal  ^w^ban  =  ^j^^ 
— Dnunn]  twv  vctSoupet'ix^^,  -cbv  0avvoupef[i.AL. — 13.  (jgL  has  a  peculiar 
text.  It  transliterates,  t'^v  xuXtjv  Fat,  and  connects  that  with  v. ". — 
p'lrnn]  is  here  rendered  evtaxui^otv,  and  pjn  is  lacking  altogether.  This 
departure  indicates  one  spot  which  escaped  the  eye  of  the  free  editor 
of  Lucian's  text.  Still  the  context  shows  that  the  people  of  Zanoah,  and 
not  Shallum,  rebuilt  the  valley  gate. — mccn]  is  regarded  by  Ges.^"<*- 
as  a  syncopated  form;  it  is  more  likely  a  scribal  error. — 14.  ^:^2''  Kin] 
(gBAN  au-zhq  xal  o\  ulol  ctuTou,  and  adds  xal  eox^icaaosv  auT'fjv,  and  then 
consistently  uses  pi.  laTT)aav.  ^  has  same  text  exc.  sa^zi-^aiav  for  eax^- 
•jcaaav.  (S  had  therefore  this  text :  nicvi  mnpii  rj3i  Kin.  This  reading 
is  preferable  to  MT.;  for  we  have  thus  the  regular  formula  for  the  gate 
building,  v.  vv. »  ".  Guthe  reads  injj. — 16.  V.«  is  lacking  in  (&^^^. — 
IiSb-  t]  C6^  Ennuv. — ntn-So]  ft^  XoXot;ec. — uSSton]  <S^  eoT^yaoev,  the  same 
word  being  used  for  innp  in  vv. »  •. — SSa]  is  defined  as  roof  over,  the 


NEHEMIAH  31-32  223 

same  sense  required  for  np  {cf.  on  v. ').  The  Chr.  would  not  use  a 
a.  X.  for  one  of  his  so-called  characteristic  words,  nor  could  we  explain 
it  as  a  txt.  err.  It  is  another  link  in  the  chain  by  which  the  composite 
character  of  this  c.  is  surely  established. — pS  rhv7\]  (g^A  ^q^^  xuSt'uv  xfj 
xoup(5c.  Underlying  this  we  must  presuppose  tj"?  ntrn. — 16.  'p  njj-iy] 
(&  £w<;  X1Q7C0U  (xTjTccov^)  xiyou  =  "i3p  P"iy,  making  the  reference  to  the 
tomb  of  David  rather  than  the  royal  cemetery. — ^JJ~^y  implies  that 
the  tombs  were  not  close  to  the  wall,  but  CS  reads  otherwise. — niitryn] 
regarded  by  Birch  as  an  error  for  hjb'm,  Is.  22"  {PEFQ.  1890,215). 
But  the  n-ipD  of  Isaiah's  time  has  become  the  artificial  pool  of  Neh.'s. 
— 17.  idSd"^]  lacking  in  (8^,  perhaps  because  of  its  obscurity. — 18.  '>i3] 
(& BsM^,  Bi?ep«<,  B^veiA,  Bavai^-.  Berth,  says:  " nach  LXX  Textf elder  = 
••^}2."  The  conclusion  may  be  better  than  the  reason.  Guthe  corrects 
accordingly. — 19.  its']  (S^  has  apxwv  xou  -fitifoou?  =  isn  na'.  If  this  is 
right,  as  Mey.  holds,  we  should  have  to  add  i'>D,  and  insert  ''xn  in  v.  ^K 
But  the  Heb.  is  clear  enough,  v.  on  v.  '^ — v^p^n  . . .  nhy]  (g^AN  (^vctgd- 
aetoq  "zriq  auvaxTouarji;  -c^c;  ytovfaq;  but  dtva^ciffswi;  twv  otcXwv  ttj<; 
ouvtzxTouaT)<;  ef?  ttjv  ycovfav  6xtati)  eJ?  t?>  opoq  aitoO^.  It  is  clear  that 
(&  rd.  some  other  word  than  pi:':,  perhaps  yjD,  and  ^^  has  corrected 
as  usual  by  addition.  Our  text  is  suspicious  on  account  of  the  un- 
usual combination:  the  arms,  the  corner.  The  plus  in  ^  is  found  in  the 
first  two  words  of  v.  ^f,  reading  mn'?  nnx.  ptrj  is  usually  rendered 
armoury,  but  that  is  a  mng.  it  does  not  bear.  The  text  is  surely  cor- 
rupt. For  various  suggested  emendations,  v.  my  note  in  Guthe.  None 
yet  offered  is  acceptable,  for  they  are  all  patchwork.  In  a  description 
of  a  section  of  a  wall  we  require  both  a  terminus  a  quo  and  a  terminus 
ad  quern.  Our  text  gives  us  the  former  only.  With  a  hint  from  d^  I 
would  rd.:  ninn  yxpa  ny  p\:^in  n^a  ijjd.  This  is  bold,  but  there  is 
no  use  in  emending  unless  in  the  process  we  can  make  sense.  V^pv, 
being  thus  defined,  is  used  in  vv.  ^o-  2<-  25  as  an  established  point,  ninn 
does  not  appear  in  v.  20  in  ($,  but  "B  has  in  monte.  Mitchell  suggests  njJD 
yxpnn  iy  ptyjn  n>Sy  (JBL.  1903,155).— 20.  ac^Sx  n>2]  (S^  BTjSeXtaoij^, 
BrjOacXiaoi^'*,  BirjOeXEt  Aaaou^'^,  o'txou  AXtaaou^^. — 22.  norn]  d  has: 
(ixs/ip®,  X^X'^P'*)  <i%zsx5iip^,  Tou  xpwTo-udxou^.  The  last  represents  a 
different  text,  i.  e.,  I33n.  B  is  sufficiently  interpretative:  t/e  campes- 
tribus  Jordanis. — 23.  Sxn]  is  suspicious,  for  the  author  shows  no  fond- 
ness for  variety  in  expression  and  would  have  said  inia  ijj  as  v.".  05 
has  Ix6[xeva,  B  cow/ra  (ijj). — 24.  njon-nyi  yixpDn]  looks  like  an  expla- 
nation of  an  unusual  word.  It  is  prob.  that  the  original  text  had 
simply  njsn-nyi,  suggesting  another  bend  in  the  wall,  and  some  early 
scribe  wrongly  identified  this  with  that  of  vv.  ''•  ^o. — 25.  SSs  f]  <&  <i)a- 
XaXB,  ^aXar.^,  ^a'ka^'^,  4>!xXkr^\—^m  f]  (S  Eust^x,  EuX^ai^,  Ou!;at^.— 
SnjDHi]  Tou  x6pYou''.  Rd.  therefore  Sunn  njo. — Nxrn]  (g  6  l^^xuv^*'"*, 
ToO  l^^xovTOi;^.  This  is  the  only  case  of  the  mng.  "project"  for  nx'>, 
so  also  vv. 2«  ". — jrSyn]  cannot  mean  "upper,"  describing  a  second 


2  24  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

palace.  ®^  has  lie'  avw,  which  stands  for  jvSp  in  Gn.  40"  2  K.  is'',  but 
usually  represents  a  prep.,  and  we  may  substitute  nSyn*?,  as  ^  continues 
•zfic,  auXf)?  TTJ?  qjuXaxii?. — 26.  iJJ-ijj]  05  Iw?  x-qtcou^*'*  =  ]J-ny;  ^  shows 
both  MT.  and  05:  ewi;  dx'  evavxt  x-^xou  (c/.  note  on  v."). — o^nn]  (g»< 
ev  Tw  Q(paX. — 29.  B"x]  OS'",  dcxb  Ntjp,  which  must  be  a  corruption  of 
av^p. — njja']  d^  o't'xou. — 30.  nnx]  rd.  as  Qr.  innN. — ■'jb']  must  be  a 
scribal  error  of  n^jr,  the  correct  form,  and  occurring  in  every  other  place 
in  this  c. — rijcj]  i2<<  13' t,  usually  nas'S,  for  which  this  form  may  be  a 
scribal  error. — 31.  ■'oixn]  (g  Sapaqpef^,  Espayefv**,  SapEgjf*,  Sepaipsf^. 
But  a  n.  p.  is  scarcely  right  here.  Guthe  suggests  a  gentilic  from  neix. 
It  is  simpler  to  rd.  after  05**  D-'Dixn,  one  of  the  goldsmiths. — airnjn  n>3] 
(&  BT]6avaes(ii,B,  BTi6avva0avt[JL*. — 3"'SDirn]  (g  xal  ol  popoxtoXai^^,  ?!Oxo- 
•luwXat^'^,  xal  twv  {leTa^oXojv^.  The  last  elsw.  represents  DnnDn;  the 
others  are  both  errors  for  pwicoxoiXat. — ipsDn]  (g^A  ^qq  Ma^exiS  Mot- 
9£9(iS'*,  T^?  exiaxstj^ewt;^.  As  this  name  does  not  occur  elsw.,  we  should 
prob.  rd.  niODn,  as  in  12". — njon  n^Sj?  nj;]  (5  ew?  dvd  [liaov  [iva^i- 
(j-M^NAL]  xa[XTC^<;B  [x^c;  xuXiji;^].  We  have  then  J^a  instead  of  ni'?!?. — 
32.  We  have  here  the  Massoretic  note  nsDn  isn. — njon]  and  the  fol- 
lowing V  are  lacking  in  <&  and  ^  lacks  also  niSj?. 


NE.   3^^-4"    (ev.   4^-^').      THE    EFFORTS    OF    THE    ENEMY    TO 
STOP    THE    WORK    ON    THE    WALLS. 

Sanb.  and  his  fellows  tried  first  ridicule  and  then  force,  but  neither 
was  effective  against  the  genius  of  the  great  leader.  He  met  sneers  by 
imprecation  and  a  fighting  force  with  a  large  anny,  his  people  being 
ready  to  use  either  the  trowel  or  the  sword.  Whether  the  enemy  really 
attacked  or  not  is  uncertain,  though  an  actual  assault  is  improb.  in 
view  of  the  silence  of  the  text.  But  the  long  continuance  of  the  pre- 
cautions— and  precautions  which  in  a  degree  checked  the  progress  of 
the  work — indicates  that  the  danger  was  always  real,  and  we  may  infer 
that  the  enemy  hovered  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city  for  a  considerable 
period  {v.  Intr.  §  '). 

The  text  in  several  places  is  very  corrupt,  and  sometimes  it  is  im- 
possible to  be  sure  of  the  rang.  Every  effort  has  been  made  to  clear  up 
the  difficulties,  though  we  must  frequently  be  content  with  various 
degrees  of  probability. 

In  the  account  of  the  wall-building  the  interference  of  the  enemy 
occupies  a  very  conspicuous  place.  There  is  always  an  independent 
intr.,  2'»-  "  3''  4'  6'  and  between  these  stories  there  is  in  N.  some 
statement  about  the  condition  of  the  work.  But  between  the  appearance 
of  the  enemy  in  21'  and  that  in  3"  there  is  not  a  word  from  N.  There 
never  could  have  been,  since  3"  follows  2",  so  we  cannot  fall  back  upon 


NEHEMIAH   333-4"  225 

the  theory  of  a  lost  section  of  N.  Then  we  note  that  vv. "-"  are  in 
substance  a  repetition  of  2"  f-.  The  enemy  did  nothing  new  here.  It  is 
difficult  to  see  why  there  should  be  two  accounts  of  their  jeering  the 
Judeans.  In  2"  we  lack  an  obj.  for  heard,  and  yet  it  must  have  been  the 
same  thing  we  have  here,  viz.,  that  "we  were  building  the  wall,"  a  clause 
which  really  belongs  to  2".  We  note  here  that  the  enemy  "scorned  the 
Judeans,"  while  in  2"  "they  scorned  us."  Outside  of  the  transposed 
clause  cited  above,  this  passage  is  in  the  third  p.  It  does  not  belong  to 
N.,  and  so  is  prob.  not  authentic.  It  was  either  added  to  his  section 
by  the  author  of  2,^-^-,  or  was  composed  by  the  Chr.  when  he  put  the 
list  of  wall-builders  in  the  midst  of  N.  The  imprecation  of  v.  '^  then 
really  belongs  to  2"^,  which  it  follows  naturally.  The  gross  corrup- 
tion of  vv.  33-35  may  suggest  another  explanation  of  its  appearance  here. 
Originally  it  was  identical  with  2"  '•,  and  accidentally  appeared  both 
before  and  after  the  insertion,  vv.  i-'^,  possibly  from  uncertainty  as  to 
which  was  the  more  suitable  position.  Then  by  a  process  of  changes 
it  was  differentiated  from  2"'  and  made  into  a  mess  from  which  clear 
sense  can  scarcely  be  extracted. 

33-35.  The  wrath  of  Sanballat  when  he  heard  that  the 
building  operations  were  progressing. — 33.  That  we  were 
building  the  wall].  The  wall  had  not  progressed  very  far  before 
Sanballat,  the  watchful  enemy,  heard  of  it. — And  he  was  an- 
gry and  deeply  incensed],  because  he  was  jealous  and  dreaded 
to  see  Jerusalem  regain  its  importance. — And  he  derided  the 
Jtideans],  perhaps  sincerely  believing  that  their  pretentious 
efforts  would  amount  to  nothing. — 34  f.  As  far  as  we  can  de- 
cipher this  very  corrupt  text,  it  may  be  rendered:  And  he  said 
before  his  brethren  and  the  army  of  Samaria,  and  he  said:  what 
are  the  feeble  Jews  doing?  will  they  give  up  to  them?  will  they 
sacrifice?  will  they  prevail  in  the  day?  will  they  revive  the  stones 
from  the  earth-heaps?  and  these  are  burned.  And  Tobiah  the 
Ammonite  was  by  him,  and  he  said:  Even  what  these  build,  if  a 
jackal  shall  go  up,  he  can  tear  down  the  wall  of  their  stones].  In 
part  that  is  not  very  promising  or  intelligible. 

<8  has  simply:  and  he  said  before  his  brethren,  is  this  the  army  of  Sam. 
that  these  Jtideatis  are  building  their  city?  A?id  To.  the  Ammonite  came 
mlh  him;  and  he  said  to  them,  shall  they  sacrifice  or  eat  at  their  place? 
Will  not  a  jackal  go  up  and  tear  down  the  wall  of  their  stones  ?  The 
mng.  of  (6  is  this:  Sanb.  is  amazed  to  think  that  the  Sam.  army  was 


2  26  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

so  inactive  as  to  allow  the  Jews  to  engage  in  extensive  building  oper- 
ations. In  defence  of  the  army  To.  asserts  that  the  feeble  efforts  of  the 
Jews  is  a  negligible  quantity.  In  4"  we  have  a  record  of  the  interfer- 
ence of  a  Sam.  army  in  the  affairs  of  Jerus.  C6  further  makes  it  clear 
that  Sanb.  and  To.  had  come  to  Jerus.,  but  there  is  no  record  in  either 
text  of  anything  that  they  did.  To  take  what  is  most  prob.  out  of  a 
very  difficult  text  we  get:  And  he  [Sanb.]  said  in  the  presence  of  his 
brethren  and  the  crowd  of  Sam.  On  the  whole,  this  rendering  seems  to 
me  preferable  to  (&.  The  idea  is  that  Sanb.  came  to  the  outskirts  of 
Jerus.  with  To.  Geshem,  and  a  nimiber  of  Sam.  To.  and  Geshem  are 
covered  by  "his  brethren,"  i.e.,  his  associates.  Frenquentia  Samari- 
tanorum  of  B  is  preferable  to  the  army  of  Sam.  If  an  army  had  been 
present,  the  attempt  would  have  been  made  at  once  to  stop  the  work. 
The  crowd  was  not  a  body  prepared  to  fight.  There  are  two  hard 
problems  about  Sanb.'s  speech,  the  length  and  the  contents.  It  is 
difficult  to  choose  between  MT.  what  are  these  feeble  Jews  doing  ?  and 
(S  that  these  Jews  are  building  their  city.  H  supports  MT.  On  the 
whole,  I  incline  to  the  latter,  for  it  is  more  specific,  and  the  idea  of  the 
weakness  of  the  Jews  was  introduced  by  To.  Sanb.  seems  to  have  been 
seriously  alarmed  at  Neh.'s  activity.  In  d  the  rest  of  v.  ^*  is  part  of 
To.'s  speech,  but  it  does  not  altogether  fit  his  other  remarks.  Besides, 
it  would  be  strange  to  introduce  Sanb.  so  elaborately  and  then  have 
him  make  a  single  self-evident  remark.  Will  they  abandon  to  them  ?  as 
MT.  reads,  is  out  of  the  question.  Will  they  fortify  themselves  as  EV^. 
is  scarcely  permissible.  Following  Sta.  many  have  emended  and  ren- 
dered: Will  they  commit  themselves  unto  God?  So  Sieg.  Ryle.  The 
phrase  is  lacking  in  most  Gk.  texts,  but  ^  renders  shall  we  let  them  alone  ? 
H  has  will  they  drive  out  those  nations  ?  ^  gives  us  the  most  intelligible 
reading  and  the  least  amendment  to  make  sense.  The  phrase  is  then 
a  part  of  a  conditional  sentence,  if  we  let  them  alone,  i.  e.,  refrain  from 
forcible  interference.  Will  they  sacrifice  ?  is  supported  by  all  Vrss.,  but 
I  do  not  understand  its  mng.  All  attempts  to  explain  it  fail.  The 
Jews  had  been  sacrificing  from  their  first  arrival  in  the  time  of  Cy.; 
they  could  offer  sacrifices  equally  well  whether  the  walls  were  built  or 
not,  and  sacrificing  was  considered  a  perfectly  innocent  practice.  In 
spite  of  the  antiquity  of  the  error,  the  text  seems  to  be  wrong. — Will 
they  make  an  efid  in  a  day  ?]  Here  we  have  a  variety  of  renderings. 
<S  offers  us  prevail  or  eat.  EV^.  follow  U  complebnnt  in  una  die. 
Without  changing  ^  much,  we  may  rd.  in  any  one  of  the  three  ways. — 
Can  they  revive  {i.  e.,  restore)  the  stones  from  the  earth-heaps  ?]  The  stones 
were  so  buried  in  the  mass  of  debris  that  it  seems  impossible  that  they 
should  ever  be  got  back  into  a  wall. — And  these  are  burned].  This  is 
not  very  clear,  but  prob.  refers  to  the  increased  difficulty  of  restoration 
from  the  fire-swept  ruins.  To.'s  remark  is  intended  to  be  the  final 
sarcasm  on  the  Jewish  labourers;  if  a  jackal  walks  along  any  stone  wall 


NEHEMIAH   333-417  227 

that  these  people  build,  it  will  break  down  under  his  tread.  The 
building  of  a  proper  wall,  adequate  for  defence,  is  a  difficult  and  la- 
borious task;  the  Jews  had  not  shown  capability  or  inclination  for  such 
an  effort.  The  enemy  has  only  sneers  for  the  present  essay;  but  they 
fail  to  reckon  with  the  new  personality  back  of  the  efforts. 

36  f.  Nehemiah's  imprecation. — His  words  imply  that  Ne- 
hemiah  had  heard  the  jeering  of  the  enemy.  Doubtless  San- 
ballat  and  Tobiah  spoke  in  the  presence  of  the  people  in  order 
to  weaken  their  hands,  cf.  2  K.  18^^. — 36.  In  the  land  of  captiv- 
ity]. It  would  be  better  with  some  Hebrew  mss.  to  read  their 
captivity.  The  reference  would  then  be  to  the  fact  that  many 
of  the  enemy  were  exiles  in  Samaria,  and  so  were  still  enduring 
the  shame  from  which  the  Jews  had  been  delivered.  That 
reference  is  not,  however,  very  satisfactory,  and  it  may  be  that 
the  true  reading  is  found  in  (&:  give  them  over  to  shame  and  to  exile 
{v.  i.). — 37.  And  do  not  cover  their  iniquity],  i.  e.,  keep  it  in  sight 
as  a  reminder  that  it  is  to  be  avenged.  The  sin  may  be  the 
ridiculing  of  the  patriotic  efforts  of  God's  people,  or  that  which 
is  common  to  mankind.  As  this  is  a  quotation  from  Je.  18^', 
we  may  doubt  its  genuineness  in  N. 

For  they  provoke  before  the  builders]  is  difficult.  The  vb.  usually  has 
Yahweh  as  obj.,  and  so  Sieg.  interprets  here:  "Yahweh's  wrath  is 
aroused  as  regards  the  builders."  But  the  clause  could  then  not  mean 
that  Yahweh 's  wrath  was  stirred  up  against  the  builders,  but  on  behalf 
of  the  builders.  That  sense  is  scarcely  extractable  from  1$,  and  besides 
would  be  a  good  thing  for  which  Neh.  might  thank  the  enemy.  We 
must  start  with  the  fact  that  this  clause  gives  the  reasons  for  Neh.'s 
imprecation,  and  that  the  last  clause  means  in  the  presence  of  the  builders  ; 
therefore  we  should  expect  because  tJiey  jeered  in  the  presence,  trying  to 
discourage  their  efforts.  Perhaps  that  is  the  idea  of  H  quia  irriserunt 
adificantes ,  because  tliey  derided  the  builders.  It  is  not  a  part  of  the 
imprecation  which  is  prob.  contained  wholly  in  v.  '»,  and  may  be  a  gl. 
to  justify  the  strong  language. 

38.  The  wall  is  half  completed. — And  we  built  the  wall]. 
Nehemiah  ejaculates  his  maledictions,  but  the  work  goes  right 
on.  And  the  whole  wall  was  joined  unto  its  half].  According 
to  c.  3,  different  gangs  of  men  were  engaged  on  various  parts  of 
the  work,     A  memorable  point  in  the  progress  is  now  recorded, 


2  28  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

when  the  gangs  met  and  so  all  gaps  were  stopped.  Unto  its 
half  can  therefore  only  mean  with  Berth,  half  the  height,  not 
half  the  circumference,  for  note  the  words  "the  whole  wall," 
i.  e.,  the  whole  circumference  was  joined  together.  This  alone 
is  consistent  with  the  stopping  of  the  breaches  in  4I. — The  wall 
was  now  of  considerable  significance  as  a  means  of  defence. — 
The  unexpectedly  quick  result  is  explained,  and  the  heart  of  the 
people  was  in  the  work],  the  condition  for  all  effective  effort. 

4''^  (EV.  =  4^'").  The  enemy  comes  to  Jerusalem  to  stop 
the  work  by  force. — 1.  The  enemy  is  enlarged  now  by  the 
presence  of  the  Arabians,  Ammonites,  and  Ashdodites,  though 
the  last  name  may  be  a  gloss.  Tobiah  was  an  Ammonite  and 
Geshem  an  Arabian  (a^^).  Geshem  is  not  named  here,  but  he 
was  probably  in  the  company.  The  jeering  at  the  walls  had 
not  stopped  the  work.  An  early  inspection  had  apparently 
satisfied  the  foe  that  nothing  effective  would  be  accomplished 
by  the  feeble  Jews.  Now  another  story  comes  to  their  ears,  for 
they  heard  that  the  restoration  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  went  on, 
for  the  breaches  were  being  stopped],  the  condition  marked  by  the 
statement  of  3^^;  the  walls  were  finished  to  half  the  required 
height. — Aiid  they  were  exceedingly  angry]  for  all  their  projects 
were  going  astray.  Once  the  walls  were  up,  the  despised  and 
easily  harassed  Jews  would  be  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  their 
neighbours. — 2.  And  they  all  conspired  together].  It  is  simpler 
with  (H  and  HJ  to  read  gathered  together.  A  conspiracy  was  hardly 
necessary  after  2^^  ^-  3^^  ^•.  The  leaders  now  collected  a  consid- 
erable force  with  the  aggressively  hostile  purpose  to  go  fight  in 
Jerusalem]  not  "against,"  for  they  had  no  idea  that  an  effort 
would  be  required  to  capture  the  city,  but  expected  to  enter  and 
force  the  un warlike  builders  to  stop  work. — And  to  cause  it  con- 
fusion]. ■  This  is  all  clear  in  itself,  except  the  masculine  suffix 
0^)  referring  to  Jerusalem,  which  is  feminine.  Still  a  Greek 
text  offers  a  tempting  amplification  to  wipe  it  [Jerusalem]  of 
the  face  of  the  earth  and  to  cause  me  confusion.  This  gives  us 
the  first  person  characteristic  of  N.  It  also  makes  clear  the 
purpose  of  the  enemy;  they  were  determined  to  strike  such  a 
blow  that  Jerusalem  would  be  no  further  a  menace. — 3.  Nehe- 


NEHEMIAH   3^3-417  229 

miah,  like  all  true  leaders,  was  kept  informed  of  the  movements 
of  the  enemy.  That  no  surprise  should  be  sprung  he  stationed 
a  guard  which  kept  watch  both  day  and  night.  Doubtless  the 
guard  was  placed  as  outposts  beyond  the  city  walls.  The 
commimity  was  pious  and  believed  in  God's  power  to  help, 
and  therefore  they  prayed  as  well  as  watched,  anticipating  our 
Lord's  "watch  and  pray"  (Mt.  26«). 

4.  And  Jitdah  said].  Judah  cannot  be  tribal  here,  but  as 
suggested  by  3^^  ^-  it  is  the  name  of  the  postexilic  community. 
The  latter  part  of  the  verse  is  clear:  and  we  are  not  able  to  build  at 
the  wall].  This  is  a  serious  declaration.  The  whole  body  of 
workers  announce  to  Nehemiah  that  they  can  go  on  with  the 
task  no  longer.  The  reason  for  this  critical  situation  is  given  in 
the  intervening  words.  The  text  runs:  the  strength  of  the  burden- 
bearers  has  failed,  and  the  earth  is  great].  Earth  is  usually  inter- 
preted as  rubbish-heaps,  and  that  sense  fits  in  with  3^*,  where 
Sanballat  jestingly  asks  if  the  Jews  can  restore  the  stones  from 
the  earth  ruins.  But  if  this  is  the  meaning,  then  the  verse  is 
misplaced,  for  we  are  dealing  here  with  the  attack  of  the  enemy, 
not  with  the  exhaustion  of  the  labourers.  (^  has  a  very  different 
text:  for  the  strength  of  the  enemy  is  exhausted  and  the  multitude  is 
large.  The  verb  "exhausted"  is  indeed  incongruous,  yet  ($ 
follows  MT.  The  original  verb  must  have  said  the  very  oppo- 
site: the  strength  of  the  enemy  is  boundless.  That  text  makes 
the  passage  fit  in  admirably  with  the  context  and  is  doubtless 
right.  The  Jews  felt  that  with  the  large  hostile  force  assembled 
against  them  that  they  could  no  longer  take  the  risk,  even  with 
their  prayers  and  the  guard.  They  were  not  afraid  of  the  work, 
but  they  were  afraid  of  the  warriors. — 5.  The  plan  of  Sanballat 
and  his  company  was  to  take  the  city  by  surprise  and  then  to 
slay  the  workmen  (in  agreement  with  d  of  v.  *)  and  thus  effec- 
tively to  bring  the  wall-building  to  an  end. 

6-8  (EV.""").  Nehemiah  sets  a  large  armed  guard 
against  the  enemy. — 6.  And  it  was  that  when  the  Judeans  who 
were  living  by  them  [i.  e.,  the  enemy,  not  the  J crusalemites  as  Sieg. 
holds]  came  in  they  said  to  us].  The  enemy  had  proposed  to 
surprise  the  builders.    They  were  assembling  for  the  attack. 


230  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Among  the  builders,  as  correctly  indicated  in  c.  3,  were  many 
who  came  from  the  country.  It  was  evidently  their  custom  to 
return  home  at  intervals.  Some  of  these  lived  close  by  the  ren- 
dezvous of  the  Samaritans.  They  came  up  to  Jerusalem  now 
with  an  alarming  report.  But  this  report  is  in  hopeless  con- 
fusion in  our  text,  which  runs:  ten  times  from  all  places  when  ye 
return  unto  us].  No  commentator  has  yet  been  able  to  give  a 
satisfactory  interpretation  of  these  words.  Naturally,  for  they 
are  wrong.  (&  preserves  a  simple  and  intelligible  reading:  they 
are  coming  up  against  us  from  all  places,  perhaps  adding,  where 
we  live.  We  understand  now  the  alarming  character  of  their 
report  and  the  prompt  measures  taken  for  defence. — 7.  Here 
again  we  have  a  hopeless  text. — And  I  stationed]  cannot  be  right, 
for  the  verb  has  no  object  expressed  or  implied,  and  that  verb 
belongs  to  the  second  part  of  the  verse.  We  might  read  / 
stood,  but  while  grammatical,  it  would  not  be  clear.  With  (5 
read  and  they  stood,  as  most  modern  interpreters.  But  the  sub- 
ject, contrary  to  general  opinion,  is  the  enemy,  not  the  builders. 
Where  they  stood  is  in  any  case  unintelligible  from  the  descrip- 
tion: at  the  lowest  part  of  the  place  behind  the  wall  in  the  open 
places].  For  the  last  expression  with  (i»  we  might  read  in  the 
breaches,  or  in  the  sheltered  places.  The  general  sense  seems  to  be 
that  the  enemy  had  advanced  to  the  best  cover  they  could  find 
opposite  the  lowest  parts  of  the  rapidly  rising  wall.  They  were 
therefore  in  the  most  available  place  for  an  attack,  sheltered 
from  the  sight  of  the  builders  and  ready  to  rush  to  those  places 
in  the  wall  where  it  could  most  easily  be  scaled. — Their  plan 
was  thwarted  by  Nehemiah's  action:  And  I  stationed  the  people 
by  families  [or  companies]  with  their  swords  and  their  spears  and 
their  bows].  This  action  shows  a  distinct  advance  on  v. ',  where 
a  guard  was  set  for  the  purpose  of  watching;  here  we  have  an 
army  equipped  and  posted  for  the  purpose  of  fighting. — 8.  Our 
text  runs:  and  I  looked  and  I  arose  and  I  said].  This  is  pretty  re- 
dundant for  the  terse  Nehemiah.  With  Guthe  we  may  emend  on 
the  basis  of  ^:  and  I  adjured  them  by  the  Lord,  saying.  Berth.'s 
proposal,  "and  I  saw  their  fear  and  arose  and  said,"  seems  to 
be  less  satisfactory.    The  brief  exhortation  was  addressed  to  the 


NEHEMIAH  $^'^-4^''  23 1 

whole  army:  to  the  nobles,  and  to  the  deputies  [C5  generals],  and  to 
the  rest  of  the  people].  The  appeal  forcibly  aims  at  the  senti- 
ments of  courage,  religion,  and  patriotism.  Do  not  fear  on  their 
account;  remember  our  God  [so  CS,  the  Lord  1^]  the  great,  and  the 
one  to  be  feared  [cf.  i^  Lu.  12''  *•  Dt.  20^  ^■]  and  fight  on  behalf  of 
your  brethren,  your  sons  and  your  daughters,  your  wives  and  your 
homes]. 

9-17  (EV.'^'^^).  The  enemy  gives  up  the  contemplated  at- 
tack.— 9.  This  verse  is  so  difi&cult  in  the  relation  of  its  parts 
that  we  may  well  suspect  an  omission.  The  parts  are  clear  in 
themselves,  but  are  hard  to  join  so  as  to  make  sense. — And  it 
was  when  our  enemies  heard  that  it  was  known  to  us]  certainly 
must  originally  have  been  followed  by  some  statement  as  to 
what  the  enemy  did  under  these  circumstances;  but  what  course 
of  action  they  pursued  we  do  not  know.  We  do  not  hear  of 
them  again  until  c.  6,  and  that  is  some  time  later.  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  there  was  no  actual  battle.  The  enemy  perhaps 
stayed  in  the  neighbourhood,  watching  for  an  opportunity  that 
never  came. — And  God  frustrated  their  plot,  and  we  all  returned 
to  the  wall,  each  man  to  his  work].  This  resumption  of  work 
naturally  follows  the  unknown  action  of  the  enemy,  whatever 
that  may  have  been.  As  the  foe  took  no  aggressive  measures, 
Nehemiah  deemed  it  safe  to  return  to  the  work.  Every  day 
of  labour  made  an  effective  assault  less  possible.  The  people 
laying  stones  were  doing  more  for  defence  than  standing  under 
arms. — 10.  The  text  goes  on  to  describe  the  conditions  under 
which  the  work  was  now  carried  on.  First  there  is  described  the 
arrangement  of  Nehemiah 's  own  followers:  half  of  my  servants 
were  engaged  in  the  work].  These  men  were  the  governor's  per- 
sonal servants,  perhaps  a  body-guard  brought  from  Persia, 
cf.  5^^:  atid  half  of  them  held  the  lances  and  the  shields  atid  the 
bows  and  the  coats  of  mail].  Sieg.  regards  all  after  "spears"  as 
a  later  addition,  but  the  reason  he  gives  is  that  no  one  would 
possess  a  coat  of  mail.  The  Jews  certainly  would  not  have  such 
accoutrements,  but  Nehemiah's  body-guard,  the  ones  referred  to 
here,  trained  and  equipped  in  Persia,  would  surely  possess  a  com- 
plete armament.     Reuss,  on  the  contrary,  supposed  "swords" 


232  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

to  have  dropped  out  of  the  list,  so  Berth.;  but  swords  are  abun- 
dantly provided  for  below.  B  has  undoubtedly  got  the  sense 
when  it  merely  summarises:  and  half  were  prepared  for  war. 
Nehemiah's  servants  were  the  best  fighters,  and  so  apparently 
half  of  them  were  working  on  the  wall,  while  the  other  half  were 
kept  under  arms  to  be  ready  to  resist  an  attack  at  a  moment's 
notice. — The  rest  of  the  verse  is  unintelligible,  for  no  sense 
can  be  made  out  of  and  the  princes  were  behind  the  whole  house  of 
Jiidah],  at  least  not  in  this  connection.  (B  vainly  connects  with 
V.  ^^  attd  the  princes  of  the  whole  house  of  Judah  building  on  the 
wall.  But  v.  "  begins  a  new  passage  and  is  clear  enough,  while 
the  above  would  imply  that  the  princes  alone  were  working  now, 
contrary  to  v.  ^.  Either  "princes"  is  an  accidental  repetition 
after  the  similar  Hebrew  word  for  coats  of  mail  or  it  is  an  error 
for  some  verb  like  drawn  up.  Behind  the  whole  house  of  Judah 
then  would  indicate  the  station  of  the  armed  guard;  they  were 
divided  into  squads  and  were  close  by  the  various  bodies  of 
workmen,  giving  moral  as  well  as  material  support. — 11.  Now 
we  come  to  the  warlike  preparation  of  the  workers:  those  who 
were  building  on  the  wall  and  those  who  were  carrying  burdens  were 
working,  with  one  hand  he  was  doing  the  work,  and  with  the  other 
he  was  holding  a  missile].  Working  is  a  conjecture.  The  He- 
brew word  might  mean  laden,  but  that  makes  no  sense.  Most 
authorities  follow  (&  armed.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  a  mason  could 
lay  stones  with  one  hand  grasping  a  weapon.  But  it  may  be 
that  what  the  statement  really  means  is  that  the  weapon  was 
close  at  hand,  not  necessarily  in  the  hand.  Or  the  last  clause- 
may  refer  only  to  the  burden-bearers.  What  the  missile  was 
we  do  not  know.  B  has  sword,  but  the  swords  were  girded  on 
the  waist,  v.  ^2.  The  Hebrew  word  means  sent  and  implies  that 
it  was  a  weapon  used  for  hurling  like  a  javelin. — 12*.  And  the 
builders  [in  addition  to  the  missile  close  at  hand  and  distin- 
guished from  the  burden-bearers]  had  each  one  his  sword  girded 
upon  his  loins,  a)id  were  building],  that  is,  the  masons  went 
right  on  with  the  work,  but  fully  prepared  to  meet  an  attack. — 
12''.  With  V.  ^  we  begin  a  new  section  in  which  the  governor 
describes  the  measures  he  took  to  collect  the  forces  quickly  at 


NEHEMIAH   333-4IV  233 

any  spot  where  an  assault  was  made  or  threatened. — Now  the 
trumpeter  was  by  my  side].  In  vv.  '^f-  we  learn  that  the  blast  of 
the  trumpet  was  to  indicate  the  point  to  which  the  whole  body 
of  guards  and  workmen  should  rush  in  case  of  a  threatened  at- 
tack. Now  if  there  was  but  one  bugler  and  he  always  by  Nehe- 
miah,  there  would  be  much  delay  in  the  event  of  an  assault. 
For  Nehemiah  would  have  to  be  informed,  and  the  trumpeter 
sent  to  the  threatened  point  before  he  blew  the  alarm.  This 
would  be  poor  generalship.  The  probability  is  that  there  were 
several  trumpeters,  one  with  each  squad  of  the  armed  guard  of 
V.  ^°.  The  blast  would  be  given  without  waiting  for  the  gov- 
ernor. Why  then  does  he  say  "  by  my  side  "?  We  have  no  great 
confidence  in  the  details  of  this  somewhat  corrupt  text,  but  the 
word  may  be  collective  and  the  trumpeters  gathered  while 
Nehemiah  gave  orders  both  to  them  and  to  the  people.  The 
trumpeter  was  a  city  watchman  whose  business  it  was  to  warn 
the  people  of  impending  danger  (GAS.  Jer.  i,^*^. 

13.  The  work  is  extensive  and  wide].  The  builders,  as  in  c.  3, 
are  spread  around  the  whole  circuit  of  the  walls,  so  that  at  any 
one  point  there  was  but  a  small  body,  perhaps  the  very  condi- 
tions for  which  the  enemy  was  watching. — 14.  Unto  us],  for 
Nehemiah  and  his  servants  would  repair  quickly  to  any  point 
of  danger. — Our  God  will  fight  for  us]  cf.  v.  ^.  Nehemiah 's  stir- 
ring address  would  not  fail  to  arouse  the  people.  Ps.  83  is 
ascribed  to  this  occasion  in  Psalms  Chronologically  A  rranged,  by 
Four  Friends,  Macmillan,  1891. — 15.  And  half  of  them  were 
holding  the  spears]  is  a  copyist's  repetition  from  v.  1°.  The 
words  have  no  meaning  here,  and  they  force  asunder  related 
clauses.  Omitting  this  we  have  an  intelligible  statement:  Now 
we  were  engaged  on  the  work  from  the  rising  of  the  dawn  until  the 
appearance  of  the  stars].  The  point  brought  out  is  therefore 
the  high  pressure  under  which  the  work  was  done.  Since  the 
enemy  had  approached  and  was  now  probably  lurking  in  the 
neighbourhood,  speed  was  of  the  utmost  importance.  Every 
stone  laid  added  to  the  security  of  the  city.  Night-shifts  were 
hardly  possible  under  the  limitations  of  ancient  times,  but  the 
working  hours  were  prolonged  from  daylight  until  the  stars 


234  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

could  be  seen,  when  it  became  too  dark  to  work  any  longer. 
The  omitted  words  spoil  this  fine  sense;  as  the  text  stands,  we 
have  the  long  day,  not  for  working,  but  for  holding  weapons, 
and  the  weapons  would  then  be  laid  aside  at  night  when  they 
might  be  most  needed. — 16.  Let  each  man  and  his  servant  lodge 
in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem].  As  we  have  seen  (v.  v.  ®),  many 
of  the  people  (most  of  them  perhaps,  since  these  words  are  ad- 
dressed to  the  people  and  since  Jerusalem  had  few  inhabitants, 
7'')  lived  outside  of  the  city,  and  went  home  at  certain  times, 
those  who  lived  near  probably  each  night. — And  they  shall  be  for 
us  a  guard  by  night  and  a  working  force  by  day].  The  Hebrew 
n^S^D  has  nowhere  else  exactly  this  sense,  but  the  context  makes 
clear  the  meaning.  It  is  not  "occupation"  or  "the  work," 
but  the  force  doing  the  work.  The  antithesis  is  to  "guard," 
which  may  have  an  abstract  sense  like  "defence,"  but  English 
has  no  suitable  corresponding  word  for  n]DN7D. — 17.  Here  we 
have  an  impressive  statement  that  shows  again  the  pressure 
under  which  work  was  done  and  the  criticalness  of  the  situa- 
tion. /  and  my  brethren  and  my  servants  and  the  men  of  the  guard 
following  me,  we  did  not  take  off  our  clothes].  Those  who  were 
especially  charged  with  the  defence  were  ready  for  action  at  a 
moment's  notice,  showing  that  a  night  attack  was  feared. 

The  rest  of  the  passage  is  obscure.  Most  scholars  correct  text  and 
render:  each  one  with  his  missile  in  his  hand.  But  to  say  nothing  about 
the  lack  of  support,  a  further  statement  about  arming  is  not  appro- 
priate here.  That  point  has  been  abundantly  covered  above.  The 
text  runs  literally:  each  man  his  missile  the  water,  which  lacks  both  con- 
struction and  sense.  In  a  Gk.  text  we  find  the  passage  amplified:  and 
the  one  whom  they  sent  for  water,  a  man  and  his  missile  to  the  water.  But 
this  has  no  connection  with  the  otherwise  incomplete  statement  about 
sleeping  with  the  clothes  on,  and  is  pretty  confused  in  itself.  More- 
over, we  have  rhv  translated  in  two  different  senses.  The  water  was 
within  the  walls,  and  the  carrying  of  a  weapon  esp.  then  is  unintelli- 
gible. The  Latin  seems  to  mean  that  each  one  stripped  for  bathing, 
making  an  exception  to  v.  a,  but  it  is  difficult  to  get  this  sense  from  our 
text.  As  some  emendation  is  essential,  we  may  regard  the  Latin  as 
the  clearest.  EV^.  "every  one  went  with  his  weapon  to  the  water"  is 
highly  interpretative,  and  certainly  gives  the  wrong  idea.  The  words 
must  in  some  way  have  qualified  the  retention  of  the  clothing.  If  I 
might  draw  a  bow  at  a  venture,  I  should  conjecture  neither  by  night 


NEHEMIAH  3^3-417  235 

nor  by  day.  This  text  is  not  so  very  different  from  MT.,  and  some  he- 
roic course  is  required.  This  proposal  has  at  least  the  recommendation 
that  it  makes  good  sense,  completing  the  statement  about  wearing  the 
clothes.  In  the  preceding  clause,  ice  did  not  lake  of  our  clothes,  we  miss 
a  coniidently  expected  note  of  time,  and  the  proposed  emendation 
suppHes  it.  Under  any  circumstances  the  passage  is  too  short  for  a 
complete  independent  statement. 

33.  bS^jd]  (S^  adds  6  'Qpuvt'TTr)?  as  2^". — d;j3ii]  (&^  IXuxt^Sy]  xal  (ipytaOT), 
cf.  4^ — Jy'^^''].  The  Hiph.  with  same  sense  as  Qal  is  late  usage.  (S^ 
etJLU7.TT3pta£  xal  e^sYeXa.  I  suspect  that  in  both  cases  we  have  a  double 
translation  of  the  same  Heb.  word  rather  than  a  witness  to  an  origi- 
nally more  amplified  text. — 34  f .  d  is  shorter  than  MT.,  and  differs  con- 
siderably from  it.  As  usual,  ^^^  has  simplest  form.  Beginning  with 
S^m  we  find:  Autt]  tj  Suvottxt?  Sojjiopwv,  oxt  ol  'louSalot  outoe  o?xoSo(ji.oii- 
ctv  T^v  eauTwv  luoWv  =  D-i'>-nN  1J3''  rhnT\  omnin  ij  p-icir  Sn  nt;  i-  follows 
||  to  anS  iJii'in,  for  which  it  has  ote  oix.o3otJiouat  Tijv  sauTwv  xoXtv,  and 
thus  shows  that  C5  rd.  those  words  as  Diij;  ija\  Several  of  the  letters  of 
these  words  are  common  with  ^,  and  this  variant  is  eloquent  of  the  oc- 
casional troubles  of  those  who  tried  to  decipher  ancient  Mss.  Mitchell 
renders  the  clause  "if  they  be  left  to  themselves,"  and  for  "sacrifice" 
he  suggests  inaji,  "they  will  build  high"  (JBL  1903,3").  A  part  of  the 
balance  of  this  v.  is  found  in  the  speech  of  To. — For  aj  and  what 
follows  (&^  has:  \^^  Gouataaouatv  y^  cfuzyovuat  exl  toO  totcou  auxwv;  oxtyl 
dvotp-rjffeTat  a>.(oxY)^  xal  xaGsXsl  rb  xel^oq  >^i6(i)v  auTdiv;  (5^  has  the  cus- 
tomary elaboration  and  duplication  showing  the  original  (&  corrected  by 
addition  of  the  extra  matter  of  MT.— iSj^n]  appears  as  <f6^-iOYZ(xi.,  i.  c., 
iS3N%  though  ^  has  as  dup.  in  one  place  SuviQaovxai. — niantt'  .  .  .  aro] 
found  only  in  ^  and  then  as  follows:  xal  et  arjyiepov  tiaovxat  xoiiq  Xt6ou;; 
[jLe-ud:  xb  ysvsaGat  yt)<;  X'iit»''2  x.o!uOevxa<;  xal  xb  xelxo?  etizsTCpiQaixevov.  This 
text  shows  i!<i3-|i  for  vr\\  V"*^  or  msix  for  mmy,  nnin  for  nnn;  and  lya 
or  a  synonym  is  added,  unless  xau6evxa(;  represents  niDiyc,  which  then 
would  be  understood  as  a  form  from  "lya. — The  first  problem  of  textual 
criticism  is  to  determine  where  To.  begins  to  speak.  iS^'^'^  starts  him 
at  in2?"'n,  (Si^  introduces  him  at  this  point  and  then  reintroduces  him 
at  V.  35.  31  agrees  with  MT.  To.'s  speech  seems  to  be  an  answer  to  the 
timid  note  in  Sanb.'s.  Therefore  in  this  respect  MT.  is  preferable. 
— The  clause  B''E'j,'  isnm  should  be  emended  in  part  after  <&  {v.s.). — 
D''B'i"]  might  be  an  erroneous  reading  in  a  bad  copy  for  btj^;  then  we 
might  conjecture:  ai-j?  nx  0''j3  rhary  omnin  nnS  idnS, — an*?  •'jTyn]. 
These  words  correspond,  apparently,  to  C5^*  xal  elxav  xpb?  lauxouc;, 
elxev**.  d^  has  this  plus  M-Jj  xaxaX£(t})0[jLev  auxou?  =  ans*  OTpn.  This 
reading  makes  the  best  sense.  H  mnn  dlmittent  eos  gentes,  =  rti  inSs''' 
nSxn  a>C5?n. — '3  ^^Tr\]  (|Ban  qjiyovxat  [Son]  Ixl  xoO  x6xou  aixwv.  (&^  has 
this,  but  in  the  dup.  apa  Suvrjaovxat  [So-'];    It  ei  cotnplebunt  [■"i'?j]  /m  m/m» 


236  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

die,  reading  nnxn  for  rn^n. — H  has  a  plus  here:  mimquld  adificare 
polerunl. — non]  (g^  ■^e'ZOs,  B  ini  {"^'i'^^)- — 36.  ina]  (g>  has  seen  ntaS 
as  in  V. ''. — nor  Y^ii2]  19  mss.  Doa*  (2;.  Kittel);  (&^  %a\  elc,  aixiiaiktiiaiav, 
i.  e.,  niB'Si. — 37.  n:v;]  (S^an  rj,  pj;  and  lack  the  remainder  of  this  v. 
and  V.  38. — D1J1J3  .  .  .  o]  B  gw/a  irrescrimt  cedificantes . 

4.  1.  DiinB'Nm]  lacking  in  ^^■'^. — nonx]  usually /zeaZ/wg,  but  here  and 
2  Ch.  24",  rcstoratmi  of  walls.  (5  cpur]. — nnn"?]  some  Gk.  mss.  and  B 
have  sg.,  which  is  better. — D^snan]  (S  Bcaacpayat,  only  occurrence  of  this 
word  in  LXX.  Kittel  suggests  dis^d. — 2.  iTi'^M]  (&  auvr)%6T)c:av;  auvdYw 
stands  for  50  Heb.  words  (see  Hatch  and  Redpath,  Concord.),  but  no- 
where else  for  iii'p.  We  should  rd.  V3p,  so  B  congregati  sunt. — niB'jjSi] 
lacking  in  ^'''^^',  (S^  toG  •rcoitjaai  kuttjv  a^avij  xal  xotYJffat  (xot  •rcXavrjaiv. 
The  first  clause  is  lacking  in  MT.,  and  we  have  the  interesting  •'V. 
Kittel  suggests  nS,  which  is  better  if  text  is  otherwise  right. — 3.  uti'^n] 
C5^  x6ptov  Tov  Gsbv  Y)ii.wv  =  ijin"?**  nin\ — 4.  Saon]  O^ban  ^-f^v  e'xOpwv,  ^^ 
T.  g.  Tjixwv.— lijyn]  (gBN  g^Xo?  =  pnn,  ©al  j,  .^oq-^_6.  irSjj— ib*;]  MT. 
cannot  be  forced  to  yield  any  sense.  The  simplest  text  is  (&^^^  dvtzpaf- 
vouatv  [I'^J?'']  £/.  xdvTwv  twv  toxwv  I9'  Y)[i,a?.  (S^  inserts  oTt  lictoTp^t^aTS 
after  toxwv,  and  thus  shows  lawn.  I  would  rd.:  ninpDn-Ssn  iSy  it^N 
ijiS;;  ntt'i—irs.  This  is  clear  and  intelligible  and  might  easily  be  cor- 
rupted into  the  present  hopeless  form. — 7.  There  is  corruption  here 
also,  but  it  is  not  so  deep-seated.  With  (&^^  rd.  nDyi  for  T'?3j;n'i. — 
D-inHi^]  occurs  elsw.  only  in  Ez.  24"-  *  26<-  '%  with  sense  of  smooth  or 
bare,  and  here  the  mng.  hare  places  is  assigned.  But  such  an  interpre- 
tation is  difficult.  (6^  comes  to  the  rescue,  having  a  dup.,  first  that  of 
(6^,  then  Lucian's  own  text:  xal  saxr^aav  uxoxdxwGev  xoij  toxou  s^oxcaSev 
ToO  ireI%oui;  ev  Tot?  avoticsicTafxevoti;.  The  last  word  occurs  in  LXX  only 
in  Jb.  39=°,  corresponding  to  iy^s;  so  here  we  might  infer  D^t'isa. 
(gBAN  j;ia,s  axeitstvoii;,  "sheltered  places."  13  has  a  text  in  which  v.  "■  ^ 
are  compressed  into  a  single  sentence:  slatul  In  loco  post  murum  per 
circiiiliim  popidum  in  ordinem  cum  gladils  suis,  et  lanceis  ct  arcuhus. — 
8.  d^jjdh-Sni]  lacking  in  (^'^^. — "'Jin]  (5  toQ  Osou  tjiawv,  i.  e.,  ijihSn. — 
(&^  has  an  important  plus  preceding  is'iti-Sn,  /.al  wpxcaa  au-rou?  xuptov 
Xeywv  =-i!:«'^  ■'jix  Dyos'Ni.  Guthe  puts  this  vb.  at  the  beginning  of  the 
V.  in  place  of  the  superfluous  oipxi  nini.  That  certainly  improves  the  text 
very  greatly.    Torrey  regards  the  addition  as  purely  arbitrary  (ES.^")- 

9.  3c=:i]  is  to  be  rd.  with  the  Vrss.  and  virtually  all  commentators. 
— 10.  ^^f;  >i>*j]  OS'^AN  ^Q^^  £XTeTtvaY[J.£va)v  sicotouv,  05^  TuapaTSTaysjisvwv 
ex.  (D-iJiii"))  15  juvenum  eormn  faciebat.  We  might  infer  that  (&  and  B 
took  the  ^  from  "i>'J  and  prefixed  to  the  vb.,  but  (5  generally  disregards 
the  participles  in  this  troublesome  passage. — a^ivnc]  (&  ivTSi'xovTo,  B 
parata  erat  ad  bellum. — a''Dmm].  Sieg.  follows  B.-Rys.,  reading  0''nma 
after  v. ",  but  in  view  of  nSfn  nprnn,  v.  ",  the  emendation  is  unneces- 
sary.— 11.  nnna  o^j^n].  In  their  despair  the  Vrss.  generally  connect 
with  preceding;  Guthe  and  Kittel  follow  these  and  change  verse-ending 


NEHEMIAH    5  237 

accordingly. — ^302]  ($  Iv  'zolc,  apx^patv. — a''i;'cj?]  (B^^^  ev  oxXoti;,  (6^ 
evoxXot,  H  fi  imp07icntium.  There  is  no  root  s'cy,  and  the  word  has 
been  identified  with  orj,',  but  that  makes  a  hopeless  redundancy,  and 
after  (&  D'HJ'cn  is  now  generally  substituted.  The  word  is  pred.  both  to 
"builders"  and  "bearers,"  but  armed  is  not  good,  as  that  is  too  general 
a  statement  for  the  workmen.  Perhaps  D"'cy  is  all  that  is  needed. — 
12.  a^jjni]  is  a  second  pred.  after  onoN,  they  were  armed  and  were  braid- 
ing, i.  e.,  armed  while  engaged  in  building.  U  begins  a  new  sentence  and 
connects  with  following:  et  adificabant,  el  clangebant  biiccina  juxta  me. 
—•h^n]  (gBAN  |^6[jLeva  aixou,  but  MT.  is  right.— 15.  o^nma  .  .  .  o^xm] 
can  only  be  a  repetition  from  v.  1°  and  does  not  belong  here.  In  place 
of  unjN]  Ci>A  has  TjfAt'au,  making  more  repetition.  If  the  words  were  re- 
tained, this  text  would  be  right,  as  aisn  needs  a  complement. — 16.  k'^n 
n;ji]  om.  (S^anl  _,j,i,,j  (g  auXtaOTiTe.— aSi-n^]  (S^-  tcoXswc;.— 17.  pNi]  (S 
%<x\  T]ixT)v,  i.  e.,  '•nxi. — ''-\^:^  'nxi]  om.  (JS^^*^'. — unjx]  (^  1^  t)[jlwv  =  unjNC. 
— "a-  a-^N]  (gBAx  connects  a'lN  with  preceding  and  lacks  a-rn  ipSb';  d^- 
has  xotl  avSpa  Sv  dx^aTsXXov  exl  "cb  uSwp,  dv:?jp  xal  otcXov  kutou  eti;  xb 
uSwp.  15  unusqiiisque  tantum  niidabatur  ad  baptismum,  apparently 
interpreting  nSt:'  in  the  sense  of  taking  off  the  clothes.  Guthe  follows 
<$^  and  has  aicn  S«  inStn  irix  aicn-Sy  in'?u'  n^'X  v^n\  Most  scholars 
rd.  nn  for  ainn.  As  a  bold  guess  I  would  propose  avni  nh^hri  rx,  neither 
by  night  nor  by  day. 


NE.    5.     THE    ECONOMIC    DIFFICULTIES    WHICH    CONFRONTED 
NEHEMIAH. 

The  placing  of  this  c.  so  that  it  breaks  the  story  of  the  rebuilding  of 
the  wall  indicates  that  the  compiler  regarded  these  hard  conditions  as 
due  to  the  work  on  the  walls.  And  many  authorities  have  followed  this 
suggestion.  It  is  true  that  the  forced  labour  without  pay  would  take 
many  away  from  the  ordinary  means  of  livelihood.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  work  was  done  in  too  short  a  time  for  a  serious  economic  disturb- 
ance, esp.  of  the  kind  described  here.  There  is  no  hint  in  the  text  that 
the  distress  was  connected  with  the  great  work.  It  is  more  likely  due 
to  the  governor's  efforts  to  secure  a  population  for  Jerus.  A  long 
time  must  have  elapsed  to  bring  about  the  state  of  affairs  described. 
Neh.  would  scarcely  have  stopped  work  to  hold  an  assembly,  esp.  in 
view  of  the  pressing  danger,  which  never  ceased  until  the  last  stone  was 
laid  and  the  last  gate  in  place.  Finally,  the  date  in  v.  ^*  shows  that  we 
are  at  the  end  of  twelve  years  of  Neh.'s  rule.  The  passage  therefore 
belongs  to  a  later  period  than  the  building  of  the  walls.  It  describes 
one  of  the  last  acts  of  Neh.'s  first  administration.  The  c.  falls  into  two 
main  parts:  vv. '-",  the  distress  and  its  relief;  vv. "-",  the  economic 
aspects  of  Neh.'s  administration. 


238  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

1-5.  Three  complaints  are  made  against  the  Judeans  by 
three  different  groups  of  people. — These  complaints  were: 
(i)  There  was  insufficient  food  for  the  large  number  of 
children.  (2)  Property  had  been  mortgaged  to  buy  food. 
(3)  Money  had  been  borrowed  to  pay  taxes.  The  result  was 
the  aUenation  of  property  and  the  slavery  of  some  of  the 
people. 

1.  The  cry  was  one  of  distress  on  account  of  dire  want.  The 
complainants  were  the  people  and  their  wives],  and  the  defendants 
were  their  brethren  the  Judeans].  The  people,  therefore,  are  He- 
brews who  were  not  reckoned  to  the  house  of  Judah,  and  may 
be  those  who  had  survived  the  exile  in  the  surrounding  terri- 
tory, unless  the  "Judeans"  means  here  the  Jews  living  in  Jeru- 
salem, as  V.  ^  may  imply. — 2.  With  our  sons  and  our  daughters 
we  are  numerous].  Such  is  the  apparent  meaning,  and  this 
rendering  is  found  in  (S.  The  population  had  increased  faster 
than  the  means  of  support.  Guthe,  adopting  a  slight  emenda- 
tion proposed  first  in  1753,  gets  "our  sons  and  our  daughters  we 
give  as  security."  But  that  would  make  this  complaint  vir- 
tually identical  with  that  of  v.  ^  and  needlessly  anticipatory  of 
V.  ^  This  change  does,  however,  make  a  connection  with  v.  ^, 
while  as  the  text  stands  the  transition  is  very  abrupt:  that  we 
may  get  corn  and  eat  and  live].  (^  gives  a  different  rendering, 
give  us  therefore  corn.  But  the  people  do  not  seem  to  be  begging; 
they  are  complaining  of  the  gradual  loss  of  their  property. — 
3.  The  second  statement  is  clear:  our  fields  and  our  vineyards 
and  our  houses  we  are  mortgaging].  The  complainants  therefore 
belonged  to  a  class  that  had  considerable  property,  and  who 
Uved  outside  of  the  city.  The  situation  is  like  that  described 
in  Is.  5^.  The  gathering  of  the  land  into  the  hands  of  the  rich 
was  not  a  new  condition.  The  text  gives  us  a  reason  for  this 
alienation  of  property,  that  we  may  get  corn  in  the  famine]. 
"Corn,"  as  in  v.  2,  is  used  for  food  generally,  like  "bread"  and 
"meat."  There  is  no  use  in  softening  "famine"  to  "dearth," 
as  EV^.  That  rendering  is  based  on  the  false  connection  with 
the  wall-building.  Famines  were  plentiful  enough  in  Judah, 
owing  to  the  failure  of  rain,  and  the  situation  requires  a  real 


NEHEMIAH    5  239 

and  perhaps  long-continued  meagreness  of  crops.  It  is  true 
that  (5  has  "eat,"  as  v.  ^  instead  of  "famine,"  but  the  Hebrew 
text  is  better  here. — 4.  The  third  trouble  is  in  part  plain:  we 
have  borrowed  money  for  the  king's  tax].  This  is  the  only  ref- 
erence to  the  taxing  of  the  people  by  the  Persian  king.  Like 
all  other  taxes,  this  is  a  preferred  claim.  As  their  crops  had 
failed,  and  the  people  had  little  or  nothing  to  sell,  the  money 
had  to  be  borrowed.  In  the  text  we  have  following  only  our 
fields  and  our  vineyards],  to  which  <8  adds  our  houses,  as  v.  ^, 
and  one  text  makes  sense  by  a  preceding  "upon,"  so  EV^.  Ac- 
cording to  that  reading,  the  real  estate  had  been  pledged  both 
for  food  and  for  taxes.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  words  are 
a  repetition  by  accident  from  v.  ^.  (So  Bohme,  see  Guthe's 
note.)  They  are  unnecessary  here.  It  quite  suffices  to  say 
that  they  had  borrowed  money,  for  whatever  property  they 
had  would,  of  course,  be  security. — 5.  One  class  of  people  com- 
plained that  their  families  were  so  large  that  they  could  not 
supply  them  with  food;  another  that  they  had  mortgaged 
their  property  because  of  famine;  and  a  third  that  they  could 
only  pay  their  taxes  by  resort  to  the  money-lenders.  Then  we 
have  the  plea  of  the  relationship  of  the  oppressor  and  the  op- 
pressed. And  yet  as  the  flesh  of  our  brothers  [the  Judeans,  v.  ^] 
so  is  our  flesh].  "Flesh"  is  used  here  in  the  sense  of  "blood" 
to  indicate  race  identity.  These  people  were  not  suffering 
from  the  oppression  of  foreign  tyrants,  but  from  the  exactions 
of  those  who  were  Jews  like  themselves. — As  their  sons  are  our 
sons],  not  meaning  that  the  poor  loved  their  children  as  truly  as 
the  rich,  and  suffered  the  pangs  of  separation  as  they  would, 
but  repeating  the  idea  of  the  blood  relationship.  The  sons  of 
the  borrowers  were  children  of  Abraham  as  well  as  those  of  the 
lenders. — The  result  of  the  hard  condition  is  now  stated:  lo, 
we  are  reducing  our  sons  and  our  daughters  to  slavery].  The  peo- 
ple had  come  back  from  Babylonian  bondage  to  find  a  Judean 
bondage,  and  the  last  state  was  worse  than  the  first.  In  Baby- 
lon the  whole  family  stood  as  one,  but  now  children  were  taken 
from  their  parents  to  become  the  slaves  of  those  of  their  own 
blood. 


240  EZRA-NEtlEMIAH 

Then  follows  an  unintelligible  passage.  Rendered  as  literally  as 
possible,  we  have:  and  there  are  sottie  of  our  daughters  subjugated,  atid  they 
are  not  for  the  strength  of  our  hand].  The  difhculty  was  felt  by  the  an- 
cient translators.  In  one  Gk.  text  we  find:  some  of  our  daughters  they 
take  by  force,  and  our  hand  is  not  strong,  i.  e.,  enough  to  make  effective 
resistance.  This  text  is  interesting  because  it  discloses  measures  of 
oppression  that  were  lawless.  In  the  complaints  above  there  was  no 
hint  of  violent  action;  the  rich  kept  well  within  the  law,  as  they  love 
to  do.  Here  is  a  stage  in  which  the  law  was  disregarded,  and  young 
women  were  seized  and  taken  from  their  homes  by  superior  force.  IS 
renders:  some  of  our  daughters  are  slaves ;  and  we  have  no  means  by  which 
they  may  be  redeemed,  in  part  showing  a  different  underlying  Heb.  text. 
I  do  not  think  "reduced  to  bondage"  right,  for  that  would  be  a  rep- 
etition of  what  was  just  said  of  both  sons  and  daughters.  Either  we 
must  om.  "and  daughters"  in  the  preceding  statement  or  substitute 
some  other  vb.  in  this  passage,  as  in  ^  (taken  by  force).  The  lack  of 
strength  in  the  hand  refers  to  the  pecuniary  loss.  A  daughter  repre- 
sented a  certain  money  value  as  a  prospective  wife,  and  the  price  was 
presumably  high  in  this  period,  so  that  many  Jews  married  cheaper 
foreign  women  (Ezr. .9,  10  Ne.  13-* '■).  Leaving  out  a  single  Heb. 
letter  in  the  last  word,  as  in  (S,  we  get  the  conclusion  of  the  trouble: 
our  fields  aiul  our  vineyards  belong  to  the  nobles  ("nobles"  instead  of 
"others"  of  MT.).  These  were  naturally  the  wealthier  classes,  as  al- 
ways land-hungry,  and  striving  to  get  together  large  estates. 

6-13.  Nehemiah  is  greatly  incensed  at  the  oppression  and 
takes  prompt  measures  to  relieve  the  distress. — 6.  And  I  was 

very  angry].  Nehemiah  was  capable  of  great  passion  when  his 
sense  of  right  was  outraged. — Their  cry  and  these  words].  The 
cry  was  the  general  wail  of  the  distressed  of  v.^;  the  words  were 
the  specific  complaints  made  in  vv.  ••^.  U  interprets  differently 
and  happily:  their  cry  according  to  these  words,  i.  e.,  their  com- 
plaint as  just  specified. — 7.  Literally,  and  my  heart  counselled 
upon  me],  EV^.  "then  I  consulted  with  myself."  This  does 
not  make  very  satisfactory  sense,  and  the  word  does  not  occur 
elsewhere  in  Hebrew.  We  might  render:  my  heart  was  king  [or 
ruler]  over  me.  It  would  be  more  natural  to  find  something  like 
"my  heart  was  hot  within  me,"  as  in  Ps.  39''. — And  I  reproved 
the  nobles  and  the  rulers],  the  two  dominant  classes  in  this  period. 
The  nobles  had  acquired  the  property  of  their  brethren  {v.  s. 
V.  ^);  and  the  rulers  were  probably  condemned  because  they  had 


NEHEMIAH    5  24 1 

permitted  the  oppression.  Of  course,  they  may  have  been  a 
party  to  it  and  shared  in  the  plunder. — You  have  exacted  interest 
each  one  of  his  brethren]  is  the  specific  charge  against  them.  This 
was  a  violation  of  the  law  which  forbade  interest  from  Hebrews, 
but  allowed  it  from  foreigners,  Dt.  232° '-,  cf.  Ex.  22^^  Lv.  25^^  ^■. 
The  prohibition  was  not  merely  against  usury  as  we  might  in- 
fer from  EV^.,  i.  e.,  interest  above  the  rate  established  by  law, 
but  against  any  compensation  whatever  for  a  loan.  Now  the 
charges  made  against  the  Judeans  in  vv.  ^-^  say  nothing  about 
interest,  and  they  do  not  even  imply  that  interest  was  charged. 
The  inability  to  pay  the  principal  of  the  loans  would  account  for 
the  loss  of  property.  Nehemiah  may  have  assumed  that  in- 
terest was  exacted  in  order  to  bring  the  oppressors  within  the 
pale  of  the  law. — And  I  gave  against  them  a  great  assembly]  can 
scarcely  be  right,  though  supported  by  the  Vrss. ;  for  the  nobles 
and  lenders  and  complainants  were  already  present,  and  v.  * 
continues  the  charge  already  begun.  The  true  text  was  prob- 
ably /  gave  a  great  curse  against  them,  v.  i.  Nehemiah  was  not 
averse  to  such  a  course  (see  i3"^'^),  where  we  have  a  similar 
conjunction  of  expressions:  "I  reproved  them  and  I  cursed 
them,"  and  note  Guthe's  text  in  4^. — 8.  And  I  said  to  them], 
i.  e.,  to  the  nobles  and  rulers  of  v.  ^,  we  have  bought  our  brethren 
the  Judeans  who  had  been  sold  to  the  nations,  according  to  our 
ability],  or  better  with  (^  of  our  own  free  will.  This  introduces  a 
new  feature  in  Nehemiah's  administration.  He  had  for  twelve 
years  been  wont  to  purchase  such  Hebrews  as  he  found  who  had 
been  sold  as  slaves  to  foreigners,  and  had  set  them  free.  The 
text  as  it  stands  would  imply  that  he  repurchased  the  slaves  as 
his  means  permitted.  05  is  stronger,  indicating  that  he  bought 
these  slaves  voluntarily  that  he  might  give  them  freedom. 
"The  nation"  means  the  foreigners  in  and  about  Judah,  so 
Ryle  and  Kost.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Nehemiah 
refers  to  people  he  had  bought  in  Persia  and  brought  back  with 
him,  apparently  Stade's  view  (BT.^-^).  That  would  weaken 
the  contrast  now  plainly  stated,  but  you  071  your  part  are  selling 
your  brothers;  and  they  are  sold  back  to  us],  so  that  some  of  the 
slaves  which  he  had  been  buying,  as  he  now  discovers,  were  the 


242  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

very  ones  sold  by  these  nobles.  No  wonder  he  was  exceedingly 
angry  and  cursed  them  roundly.  No  wonder,  in  view  of  this  pub- 
lic exposure,  that  they  were  silent  and  not  a  word  did  they  find],  i.  e., 
for  reply.  In  Jb.  32^  we  have  a  similar  expression,  ''and  they 
found  no  answer."  The  expression  is  peculiar  and  happy,  im- 
plying inability  of  the  accused  to  find  any  defence  to  the  charge. 
9.  Nehemiah  now  appeals  to  the  nobles  both  on  religious — 
should  ye  not  walk  in  the  fear  of  our  God — and  on  patriotic 
grounds — because  of  the  reproach  of  the  nations  our  enemies]. 
The  fear  of  God  here,  as  often  in  the  late  literature,  is  merely 
synonymous  with  "religion"  or  "law."  The  meaning  is  not 
that  the  people  should  dread  God,  for  to  fear  him  is  to  live  ac- 
cording to  his  laws.  In  the  latter  clause  (^  lacks  "the  nations." 
"The  enemies"  would  refer  to  people  like  Sanballat  and  his 
crew,  who  had  made  so  much  trouble  during  the  building  of  the 
wall.  "The  nations"  are  the  foreigners  to  whom  the  slaves  had 
been  sold.  It  is  impossible  to  make  these  identical,  and  one 
term  or  the  other  must  be  dropped.  In  later  times  than  Nehe- 
miah "foreigner"  and  "enemy"  were  synonymous.  The  appeal 
to  the  people  and  to  God  to  avoid  the  scorn  of  their  enemies 
is  common  in  the  postexilic  literature  (see,  e.  g.,  Ps.  42^-  "  Jo. 
2^^).  How  could  these  Jews  have  the  face  to  claim  superiority 
for  their  God  and  for  their  religion  if  their  enemies  saw  the 
strong  and  rich  taking  advantage  of  the  weak  and  poor. — 10. 
The  Hebrew  text  has:  and  now,  I,  my  brethren  and  my  servants, 
have  loaned  them  money  and  corn].  Nehemiah  then  admits 
that  he  has  done  the  same  thing  for  which  he  curses  the  nobles 
(v. ''). — The  latter  part  does  not  help  much,  let  us  therefore  re- 
mit this  interest].  The  ancients  were  puzzled  by  the  passage. 
(^  reads:  we  have  supported  them  with  money  and  corn.  H  keeps 
text  in  v.",  but  in  v.  ^  has:  we  do  not  ask  back  what  is  due  to  us; 
we  grant  that  that  is  another's  money  for  common  use.  One  Greek 
text  adds  to  v.  '^ :  and  we  will  give  for  them  money  to  put  away 
from  you  this  interest.  The  course  of  least  resistance  to  make 
sense  would  be  to  render:  we  have  loaned  them  money  and  corn 
and  we  have  remitted  this  interest,  that  is,  they  also  had  made 
loans  to  the  needy,  but  had  scrupulously  followed  the  law, 


NEHEMIAH    5  243 

making  no  interest  charges. — 11.  Nehemiah  now  leaves  off  the 
denunciation  of  the  oppressors  and  the  recitation  of  his  own 
good  deeds  and  makes  a  definite  demand:  restore  to  them  this 
very  day  their  fields,  their  vineyards,  their  oliveyards  and  their 
houses].  "Oliveyards"  is  not  found  in  vv.  ^-^  and  is  an  addition 
because  of  its  constant  use  in  Dt.,  which  law-book  is  the  basis 
of  the  actions  described  here. — The  text  continues:  a'}id  the 
hundredth  of  the  money  and  the  corn,  the  wine  and  the  oil  which 
you  loan  them],  "Wine  and  oil,"  like  "oliveyards"  above, 
are  added  from  Dt.  "Hundredth"  cannot  be  right.  Such  a 
petty  remission  would  be  useless  to  relieve  the  distress.  K  saw 
the  difficulty  and  renders:  rather  more  than  the  hundredth. 
Most  authorities  by  a  slight  change  of  text  render:  the  interest 
of  the  money  and  corn.  The  demand  was  therefore  to  restore 
the  real  estate  so  that  the  people  would  have  the  means  to  sub- 
sist and  to  pay  their  just  debts,  and  to  relinquish  the  unlawful 
interest  which  had  been  charged.  Geike  reads,  "remit  this  ex- 
action of  a  pledge"  {Hours,  vi,**^). — 12.  The  nobles  and  lead- 
ers had  been  silent  in  the  face  of  the  accusation,  v.  ^,  for  they 
could  only  plead  guilty,  and  silence  sufficed  for  that.  Now  they 
are  called  upon  to  speak,  for  a  definite  requirement  was  laid 
upon  them.  They  accept  in  full  the  governor's  terms:  we  will 
give  hack  [the  fields,  vineyards,  and  houses  being  understood  as 
objects],  and  we  will  not  exact  from  them  [the  interest  of  the 
money  and  the  corn  also  understood  as  objects]. — And  I  sum- 
moned the  priests],  for  either  they  alone  had  the  right  to  admin- 
ister an  oath  or  an  oath  sworn  by  them  was  peculiarly  solemn 
and  binding:  and  I  made  them  [the  accused]  swear  to  do  accord- 
ing to  this  word].  Nehemiah  was  not  satisfied  with  their  bare 
word.  An  affidavit  is  more  convincing  than  a  mere  personal 
statement,  even  after  all  the  centuries  since  Christ  taught  the 
contrary. — 13.  Further  I  shook  out  my  arms].  "Lap"  of  RV. 
is  quite  unjustifiable.  In  one  text  we  find  hands.  The  He- 
brew word  is  usually  rendered  bosom,  and  after  sinum  of  H, 
interpreted  to  mean  the  bosom  of  the  garment;  see  Ryle's  highly 
imaginative  description.  The  action  was  symbolical,  a  com- 
mon method  among  the  Hebrews  of  reinforcing  an  idea.     The 


244  EZRA-NEHE^UAH 

point  of  the  action  appears  in  the  following :  so  may  God  shake  out 
every  man  who  does  not  establish  this  word  from  his  house  and  from 
his  property  and  so  may  he  be  shaken  loose  and  empty].  The 
man  is  to  be  separated  violently  from  his  property,  so  that  they 
part  company.  To  make  the  symbol  effective,  therefore,  we 
should  expect  that  Nehemiah's  shaking  would  result  in  loosen- 
ing something  from  him.  This  could  not  be  his  arras  or  his 
bosom,  but  might  well  be  his  cloak.  If  he  shook  loose  his 
outer  garment,  so  that  it  fell  from  his  shoulders,  then  the  point 
would  be  clear.  But  perhaps  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  say 
all  this,  as  the  people  were  looking  on.  What  happened  may 
be  put  thus:  and  I  shook  my  arms  [or  bosom],  and  then  as  the 
garment  fell  from  him,  he  went  on:  so  may  God  shake  it. — And 
all  the  assembly  said,  Amen].  The  assembly  does  not  mean  a 
formally  called  and  authoritative  body,  but  the  crowd  of  peo- 
ple which  had  gathered.  Indeed,  Nehemiah's  summoning  the 
priests  (v.  ^'^)  shows  that  there  was  no  formal  assembly,  other- 
wise they  would  have  been  present.  "Amen,"  which  plays  such 
an  important  role  in  Christian  worship,  was  much  used  as  a 
form  of  solemn  congregational  assent  in  postexilic  times. — 
And  they  praised  Yahweh].  The  subject  is  "assembly";  nat- 
urally those  who  had  been  released  from  their  oppressive  bur- 
dens would  have  good  cause  for  praise. — And  the  people  did  ac- 
cording to  this  word].  The  "people,"  however,  had  been  the 
complainants,  v.  ^  It  would  be  more  natural  to  find  the  nobles 
and  the  rulers.  At  all  events,  they  are  meant;  for  the  reference 
is  to  the  execution  of  the  demand  made  upon  the  rich  by  Nehe- 
miah.  The  people  had  nothing  to  do  except  to  go  back  to  their 
houses  and  fields. 

This  passage,  vv.  i-",  is  from  N.,  but  it  has  been  worked  over  more  or 
less  by  the  Chr.  (&  shows  that  in  some  texts  the  process  had  gene 
further  than  appears  in  MT.  The  most  liberal  expansion  is  in  vv. "  '•, 
which  are  probably  wholly  from  Chr.  ncNii  can  easily  be]  explained 
then.  Chr.  introduces  a  speech  for  Neh.  by  prefixing  the  natural 
"and  he  said,"  forgetting  that  Neh.  always  wrote  "and  /  said." 

14-19.  Nehemiah  recites  the  good  features  of  his  rule, 
that  he  had  imposed  no  exactions  upon  the  people,  that  he 


NEHEMIAH   5  245 

had  supported  the  poor  from  his  own  purse,  and  that  he  had 
contributed  to  the  work  on  the  wall. — 14.  He  commanded  me], 
i.  e.,  King  Artaxerxes.  We  might  transpose  "  the  king"  from  v.'' 
to  this  place  as  subject. — To  be  governor  in  the  land  of  Judah], 
This  is  the  only  reference  to  the  official  position  of  satrap,  to 
which  Nehemiah  had  been  duly  appointed.  The  fact  is  im- 
portant in  view  of  the  question  of  Ezra's  relation  to  Nehemiah. 
The  latter  could  scarcely  have  accomplished  such  great  works 
in  development  and  administration  without  the  support  of 
official  status. — From  the  20th  year  even  to  the  32^  year  of  Arta- 
xerxes]. The  20th  year  (2^)  was  the  date  of  his  coming  to  Jeru- 
salem; from  13®  it  appears  that  the  3  2d  year  indicates  the  close 
of  his  term.  He  merely  says  here  that  he  served  for  twelve 
years  without  pay,  but  the  implication  is  that  his  whole  period 
of  service  is  included. — The  bread  of  the  governor  I  did  not  eat]. 
The  satrap  was  wont  to  require  provisions  for  his  extensive 
household  to  be  supplied  by  the  people  over  which  he  ruled; 
cf.  Solomon's  method,  i  K  4^  ^•.  Nehemiah  did  not  exact  this 
customary  demand,  but  lived  from  his  own  purse. — 15.  In 
contrast  to  his  own  generous  rule,  he  describes  the  precedents 
he  had  ignored :  now  the  former  governors  who  had  preceded  me 
laid  a  heavy  burden  upon  the  people].  The  implication  is  clear 
that  there  had  been  Jewish  governors  before  Nehemiah,  so  Mey. 
(Ent.^^).  The  general  statement  is  followed  by  specifications: 
they  took  from  them  for  bread  and  wine  forty  shekels  of  silver  each 
day].  H  furnishes  daily  in  place  of  the  meaningless  after,  which 
would  mean  that  forty  shekels  (about  $25)  were  required  daily 
from  the  whole  people,  a  reading  followed  by  Guthe,  Ryle,  el  al., 
interpreting  the  words  to  mean  forty  shekels  of  silver  each  day 
for  the  purchase  of  bread  and  wine. — Another  specification  is: 
also  their  servants  domineered  over  the  people].  The  meaning 
must  be  that  the  satrap's  servants  were  not  only  insolent  and 
haughty,  but  also  that  they  filled  their  hands  at  the  expense  of 
those  who  were  helpless  before  them.  The  person  in  authority 
is  never  wont  to  lend  a  very  willing  ear  to  complaints  against 
his  subordinates. — 16.  And  further  the  work  of  this  wall  I  sup- 
ported].    This  wall  shows  that  Nehemiah  was  in  Jerusalem  when 


246  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

he  wrote  (or  spoke)  those  words.  In  the  Chronicler's  report, 
c.  3,  there  is  no  statement  of  work  done  by  Nehemiah.  The 
meaning  may  be  that  he  contributed  of  his  means  toward  the 
work.  "Continued"  (for  "supported")  of  EV^  is  meaningless 
and  unjustifiable,  being  due  to  the  misplacing  of  this  chapter. — 
And  afield  I  did  not  acquire].  He  may  mean  that  he  had  not 
taken  land  for  debt  as  the  nobles  had,  or  that  he  had  acquired 
no  landed  property  in  any  way  during  his  governorship.  He 
was  not  richer,  but  poorer,  as  the  result  of  twelve  years'  rule. — 
And  all  my  servants  were  gathered  there  at  the  work].  This  would 
more  naturally  follow  the  first  clause  describing  Nehemiah's 
personal  efforts  toward  laying  up  the  walls.  The  clause  about 
the  field  introduces  a  different  subject  and  breaks  the  narrative, 
and  it  may  be  misplaced. — 17.  Now  we  come  to  another  point 
in  Nehemiah's  generosity.  The  Judeans,  to  the  number  of  a 
hundred  and  fifty,  who  had  come  to  us  from  the  surrounding  nations 
[ate]  at  my  table]. 

The  text  adds:  and  the  riders.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  place 
they  have  here.  Their  presence  would  not  be  accounted  a  good  deed 
on  his  part.  Feeding  the  poor  is  meritorious,  but  feeding  the  rich  is 
a  different  matter.  We  may  best  follow  ®  and  om.  this  word.  Fur- 
ther the  text  inserts  a7td,  making  two  classes  sitting  at  the  governor's 
table,  the  Judeans  and  those  who  had  come  in  from  the  nations.  This 
again  obscures  the  point  of  merit.  After  the  fall  of  Jerus.  in  586  many 
Jews  found  homes  among  the  neighbouring  peoples,  just  as  a  large 
colony  went  to  Egypt  and  settled  there.  Neh.  was  endeavouring  to 
build  up  not  only  the  walls  of  the  city,  but  a  state,  and  therefore  would 
naturally  strive  for  the  return  of  his  own  people.  Some  were  induced  to 
return.  They  would  surely  be  the  poorer  classes,  and  would  for  a  time 
have  no  means  of  subsistence.  Neh.  generously  fed  them  at  his  own 
expense.  This  charitable  act  he  might  properly  ask  God  to  reckon  to 
him  for  righteousness,  v. ''. 

18.  To  feed  this  large  body  would  require  liberal  provisions, 
so  we  have  information  from  the  commissary  department:  and 
that  which  was  prepared  for  one  day].  nV]^  is  often  used  in  this 
sense  of  preparing  food  for  the  table,  v.  BDB. — One  ox,  six 
choice  sheep  and  fowl  were  prepared  for  me].  This  would  provide 
meat  for  one  meal  for  six  or  eight  hundred  people,  provided 


NEHEMIAH   5  247 

they  ate  as  we  do  with  other  varieties  of  food.  With  the  150 
poor  Judeans  and  Nehemiah's  own  household,  he  had  to  feed 
some  four  or  five  hundred  people. — The  next  statement  is  not 
so  clear;  literally,  it  runs:  and  between  ten  days  with  all  wine 
in  abundance].  With  the  aid  of  (^  we  may  get:  and  every  ten 
days  wine  for  the  whole  multitude.  The  "multitude"  was  prob- 
ably the  large  body  which  fed  at  the  governor's  table.  While 
the  select  few  might  have  had  wine  daily,  only  at  intervals  of 
ten  days  was  this  drink  served  to  the  whole  household. — And 
even  with  this  I  did  not  exact  the  bread  of  the  governor].  In  spite 
of  the  unusual  requirements  of  his  court,  he  did  not  collect  his 
just  dues.  The  reason  he  gives  adds  greatly  to  his  credit:  be- 
cause the  service  was  heavy  upon  this  people].  The  "service" 
would  naturally  suggest  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls;  but  such  a 
restricted  sense  is  not  admissible,  and  the  word  may  properly 
refer  to  the  whole  labour  imposed  upon  a  feeble  people  by  the 
effort  to  build  up  a  respectable  state.  B  expresses  the  true  idea 
very  well:  for  the  people  were  enfeebled,  a  condition  made  clear 
by  the  testimony  of  this  whole  chapter. — 19.  Nehemiah  closes 
with  a  characteristic  prayer:  remember  to  me  for  good,  0  my  God, 
all  that  I  have  done  for  this  people],  cf.  6"  13-2-  ^a-  31. 

2.  'ai  ij''i3]  d  ev  utot?  73.  xal  Iv  Gu.;  IS  flii  noslri  et  filim  nostra  multce 
sunt  nimis. — D''ai]  Guthe  follows  an  old  proposal  and  reads  ooiy,  as 
V. '. — nnpji]  d^  Sots  ouv  t)[jliv  =  uS  pS  un;  B  accipiamus  pro  pretio 
eorum. — 3.  3J*ia]  d  xal  qjaydfjieOa,  so  nSaxji  as  in  v.^. — 4.  (B  adds: 
xal  oixfat  ij[Lm;  d^  puts  the  nouns  in  the  dative  preceded  by  sict;  H 
precedes  by  dcniusque. — 5.  d^  has  ulol  fjtxwv  u'tol  oeutwv  by  transposi- 
tion. To  this  ^^  adds  oxc  aap^  [lix  ia[t.iy,  an  expression  not  elsw.  in 
OT.,  for  Gn.  2-*  refers  to  marriage. — D>n2v'^]  (S>^  dq  SoijXa<;;  H  in  scrvi- 
tutem. — mcajj]  (S^  <^iq.  ayatpoOvxat. — u-'T'  Vx*?  pNi]  B  ncc  hahemus,  nude 
possint  redimi  (Snj)  ;  d^  reads  xetpb?,  (S^  xal  06/  layyu  -fj  xslp  rf^&M. — ■ 
annxS]  (&  toI?  evT([xocs,  a  word  which  always  stands  in  Ne.  for  iin 
(2I6  48.13  ^7  6"  75),  rd.  therefore  amnS. — 6.  Dnp>ni]  (S^  ampHfies: 
T^v  ip(i)vf]v  TTj?  xpauy-^?  auTuv. — 7.  iSci]  f  is  explained  as  a  loan-word 
from  the  Aram.  mng.  counsel;  BDB.  explains:  "I  considered  care- 
fully." But  from  his  course  there  seems  to  have  been  no  cause  for  very 
deep  pondering  before  the  attack  on  the  rich.  Ges.^  gives,  "I  went 
to  myself  for  advice";  but  Neh.  was  not  wont  to  go  to  any  one  else. 
The  Vrss.  all  understand  the  word  in  this  sense.     It  might  easily  be 


248  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

connected  with  the  common  i'?a,  my  heart  was  king  over  me,  i.  e.,  he 
acted  according  to  his  feelings. — '^Snp]  is  found  in  late  poetry  in  but 
two  places,  Dt.  2i^  Sirach  7'.  We  have  Snp  in  v. ".  But  the  govern- 
ing vb.  would  not  be  jnj,  for  which  Cl^  has  auvigYoyov,  18  congregavi. 
Moreover,  what  sort  of  an  assembly  would  Neh.  call  against  the  lead- 
ers? There  was  no  democracy  in  those  days.  If  this  were  right,  on"? 
in  v. '  would  refer  to  the  assembly.  In  spite  of  the  Vrss.  I  would  rd. 
nSS"!,  curse. — 8.  unjx]  B  adds  ut  scilis. — ua  ns]  CS  ev  Ixouafy  ■fjfxwv;  H 
secwidum  possibilitatcin  nostrain.  (&  shows  unaija,  a  reading  generally 
ignored,  but  better  than  MT.  (S^  has  a  long  insertion  or  plus  at  this 
point:  YjiJiIv  Be  SouXeiiouorcv  ol  a3sX9ol  ri\j.Giy  ol  ulol  'lapaTjX;  sxacvecw  u[ji.a<; 
oux.  eu  xsxotrjxdTa?.  xotl  ■^[lecs  Y«p  axoSwa6[jL£6a  toCk;  aSeXyo'jg  ■^tz.wv  toOi; 
'louSatouc;  tou?  xpaOlvra?  Iv  -rot?  sSvsatv.  Ixavw?,  xixva,  exoti^aaTS.  eSSs  (xi^, 
xav  utilv  dxcSwaeaOe  aiJTOu<;.  In  part,  this  is  a  repetition,  and  generally 
speaking  it  does  not  throw  any  additional  light  upon  the  situation. — 
uS  njDji]  lacking  in  d^^^". — nai]  (g^  adds  dxo/.pi'vaa0at  (nuyS) ;  B  rm 
inveneriint  quid  respondcrcnl.  In  Jb.  32^  we  find  njj-D  ixsD  nS. — 9. 
iCN"'i]  Qr.  -1DN1,  but  we  should  rd.  n-^csi  as  vv. ' '-. —  xiSn]  d  oux  outgx;. 
— *nj<"(0]  ®^  ouSs  dx;  (popou[X£vot  tov  Bebv  axeffirpsiJ^aTS  xbv  aveiStaixdv 
X.  T.  >.. — Dun]  lacking  in  (S^'^**. — 10.  njjj]  d  ot  yyoiazoi  [xou  =  "|J?Ti,  but 
MT.  agrees  with  4''. — a"'B'j]  d  l9T)x.ot[i.£v,  z.  e.,  D>r^,  from  D'tr.  (6^  adds 
to  the  v.  xal  Scoaofxev  uxep  aOTwv  apyuptov  dtxoOdaOat  dcip'  ujitov  xb  pdepoi; 
ToiJTo.  H  has:  non  repelamus,  in  citmmmie  istud  as  alienum  conce- 
damus,  quod  debetur  nobis. — 11.  hndi]  d^^x  y^^i  ^^i^  ^l  ^^^  ^^^  Most 
authorities  rd.  hncd,  v.  Guthe's  note. — is'n]  (S^^^  xal,  d''  iiiel?. — 
a>a':]  d  l^eviYxocrs  (ns"').  H  adds  to  v.,  (fa/e  pro  illis. — ''jxn]  d''  xkq  xet- 
paq  p.ou,  representing  ''Jon,  hollow  oj  the  hand,  as  in  Ex.  9^  Lv.  i6>-.  fxn 
is  defined  as  bosom,  but  in  the  few  places  of  its  occurrence]  (Ps.  129' 
Is.  49")  it  might  better  mean  arms. 

14.  Dj]  lacking  in  (§^^. — ano]  is,  as  Guthe  says,  impossible.  Fol- 
lowing d  dc,  apxovTTa  auTwv,  he  reads  anno.  But  as  the  sf.  has  no 
antecedent,  I  should  prefer  nna. — '^'or\]  is  lacking  in  (&^^;  H  has  rex 
as  subj.  of  nix.  Such  a  subj.  is  required  there,  and  I  would  transpose 
accordingly. — nnon  anS]  d^^*^  ^tav  auTuv.  In  v. "  these  texts  have 
Ta?  ^ta?  for  mnon.  Hatch  and  Redpath  give  no  Heb.  equivalent  in 
these  places.  Bfa  represents  a  different  Heb.  word  in  almost  every 
place  it  is  used.  It  is  therefore  difficult  to  ascertain  what  the  Gk. 
translators  had  before  them.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  they  had 
neither  anS  nor  nnsn.  In  v.  i'  we  have  apTOu?  iric,  <^>i(xq,  so  ^fa  repre- 
sents some  word  which  was  rd.  in  place  of  nnc  in  all  three  places,  d^ 
has  SpTov  TT)<;  -fjYejxovfas  [lou,  B  qu(£  ducibus  debebantur. — 15.  d^  lacks 
B-'jB'N-in  and  avoids  a  redundancy  which,  however,  is  not  uncommon 
in  Heb.  The  same  text  adds  xXot6v  as  obj.  of  n^aan,  reading  therefore 
o;>n-S3;  H\ — For  ayn  hy]  d^'^^'  has  ex'  auTou?  =  an^Sy. — tiaa  -\n.x]  d  ea- 
XOTOv  (Jpyiptov  (ou^),  II  et  pecunia  quotidie. — annyj]  d^'^^  01  IxTS-ucvaY- 


NEHEMIAH   6  249 

ir^vot  auxwv  =  onmyj. — vshf]  (S^an  e^oujtdl^ovTat,  (6^  lnuptsuaav. — 16. 
^npinn]  (Sban  0,^^  expcJcxTjaa. — nyj]  lacking  iu  (g^AN^  (gL  jj^g  ^^j,  ^aj(3j,p((i 
liou  xal  %&vzz<;  ol  auvayiJievoi. — 17.  DijJDn]  lacking  in  (S^^^^*. — o^xam]  1 
is  lacking  in  05^^'. — ■>jnSa'-?>;]  (5^  liil  Tfjv  xpaxei^iv  (aou  s^svc'Covxo;  the 
last  word  not  occurring  elsw.  in  (S  and  mng.  "to  wash  out"  is  scarcely 
appropriate  here.  Some  vb.  like  "sat"  or  "ate"  might  have  stood 
here. — 18.  w]  lacking  in  (S^. — onflx]  <5  xt[jiapoc;  =  i^iiS;  B  exceplis 
volatilibus. — nainS]  (g^'^**  tw  %kri%zi;  (&^  xocvxl  xw  xX-^Oei,  icavxl  xy  Xaw, 
an  explanatory  dup.  (&  rd.  a'l';'  and  that  is  clearer  than  MT. — nt]  (& 
xoiixoii;,  referring  to  the  people  whom  Neh.  fed.  In  v.  •>  H  has  in  some 
respects  a  variant  text:_e/  alia  multa  tribuebam:  insuper  el  annonas 
ducatus  mei  non  quaesivi,  valde  enim  alteniiatus  erat  populus. 


NE.  6.      FURTHER    EFFORTS    OF    SANBALLAT    AND    THE    OTHERS 
TO    THWART    NEHEMIAH. 

This  c.  is  the  direct  continuation  of  c.  4.  The  wall  proper  is  finished 
on  the  25th  of  Elul.  The  enemy  first  tries  to  tempt  Neh.  to  a  confer- 
ence in  the  plain  of  Ono.  He  puts  them  off  repeatedly  with  a  promise 
to  meet  them  when  his  great  work  is  finished.  The  enemy  then  tries 
to  frighten  him  with  a  rumour  that  he  is  planning  rebellion  and  as- 
piring to  royalty.  These  measures  proving  futile,  the  foe  tries  a  new 
method  and  hires  a  prophet  to  induce  him  to  act  as  a  coward  and 
to  commit  sacrilege.  A  secret  correspondence  was  carried  on  between 
To.,  who  was  related  by  marriage  to  prominent  Judeans,  and  certain 
conspiring  nobles,  trying  to  frighten  Neh.  to  some  overt  and  self- 
condemning  action.  In  this  narrative  the  plots  of  the  enemy  are  so 
much  in  evidence  that  we  hear  of  the  walls  only  incidentally. 

1-4.  Sanballat,  being  thwarted  in  his  efforts  to  check  the 
work  on  the  walls  by  force,  now  falls  back  on  treachery. — 1. 
Here  the  three  leaders  of  the  conspiracy  are  named,  as  in  2^', 
Sanballat,  Tobiah,  and  Geshem;  in  v.  2  Tobiah  is  not  men- 
tioned. We  might  suppose  that  only  two  were  willing  to  go  so 
far  as  to  indulge  in  personal  violence.  It  may  be  that  Tobiah 
had  reasons  for  declining  to  be  a  party  to  the  plot,  since  he  was 
related  to  some  Jewish  magnates,  but  it  is  more  likely  that  the 
name  has  been  accidentally  dropped  in  v.  2. — The  rest  of  our 
enemies]  is  explained  by  the  full  list  in  4^  We  note  a  change 
of  construction,  -when  it  was  reported  to  Sanballat,  etc.,  perhaps 
indicating  that  the  enemy  had  left  the  immediate  neighbour- 


250  EZR  A-NEHEMIAH 

hood  of  Jerusalem. — That  I  had  built  the  wall,  and  that  there 
was  not  left  a  breach  in  it].  The  tenses  show  that  the  wall  proper 
was  now  finished,  a  distinct  advance  on  the  last  notice  in  3^*. 

In  spite  of  the  trying  conditions  described  in  c.  4,  the  last  stone  had 
been  laid  in  the  wall.  (&,  however,  offers  a  tempting  substitute  for 
the  second  clause,  i.  c,  then  there  was  no  spirit  left  in  them,  cf.  i  K.  10% 
where  a  similar  statement  is  made  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba.  Gram- 
matically this  text  is  better,  as  the  sentence  makes  a  suitable  apodosis, 
thus:  when  it  was  reported  to  them  .  .  .  there  was  no  spirit  left  in  them. 
They  were  dispirited  because  of  their  failure  to  check  the  upbuilding  of 
the  old  hostile  city.  On  the  other  hand,  MT.  makes  a  more  suitable 
connection  with  the  following  clause,  which  continues  the  description 
of  the  progress  of  the  work.  Neh.'s  own  account  of  the  work  reads 
very  unlike  the  story  told  in  c.  3. 

Up  to  that  time  I  had  not  set  up  doors  in  the  gates].  The  ex- 
pression shows  that  Nehemiah  was  writing  some  time  after  the 
event,  and  that  at  the  time  of  writing  the  gates  were  finished. 
This  is  in  agreement  with  5^*  {v.  s.).  The  gate  is  the  open 
space  in  the  wall,  and  the  ''doors"  would  close  that  gap.  Jeru- 
salem was  still  vulnerable,  but  only  at  a  few  narrow  points, 
and  thus  comparatively  easily  defended. — 2.  Therefore  the  op- 
portunity for  a  secret  or  open  attack  had  gone  by.  The  enemy 
must  adopt  a  different  plan  of  campaign.  It  appears  that  the 
city  with  its  menacing  walls  was  not  so  dispiriting  as  the  capa- 
ble and  energetic  leader.  The  purpose  of  the  enemy  was  now 
to  accomplish  his  destruction,  not  openly  but  by  subtlety.  If 
they  could  get  rid  of  Nehemiah  they  could  easily  dispose  of  the 
walls  he  had  built.  They  sent  him  a  message  therefore:  come, 
let  us  meet  together  in  the  hamlets  in  the  plain  of  Ono].  B  is 
more  specific,  reading:  let  us  make  a  treaty,  presumably  of  peace, 
and  intending  to  throw  Nehemiah  off  his  guard. 

One  is  found  only  in  postex.  writings  (Ezr.  2"  Ne.  7"  11"  i  Ch. 
8"))  in  all  these  places  as  the  name  of  a  city.  The  place  is  located  near 
Lj^dda,  about  1 2  miles  north  of  Jerus.  Stress  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that 
Neh.'s  reply  indicates  that  the  rendezvous  was  some  distance  away, 
Berth.  Sieg.  Ryle;  but  Neh.  might  have  made  the  same  reply  if  the 
appointed  place  were  close  by.  The  conference  would  interfere  with 
his  work  without  any  travelling.    The  indefiniteness  of  the  proposed 


NEHEMIAH   6  25 1 

meeting-place  is  apparent;  therefore  it  has  been  suggested  that  under 
the  word  for  villages  is  concealed  a  n.  p.,  perhaps  Kephirah.  The 
art.,  at  all  events,  indicates  a  definite  place. 

Now  they  were  devising  to  do  me  harm].  This  is  Nehemiah's 
own  divination  of  the  purpose  of  the  meeting,  a  conviction  amply 
justified  by  future  events.  The  character  of  the  harm  cannot 
be  determined  by  the  very  general  Hebrew  word;  but  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  of  any  other  aim  than  personal  violence,  for  the 
mere  slackening  of  the  work  would  be  useless  to  these  foes. — 
3.  Sanballat  must  have  sent  some  one  to  Nehemiah  to  convey 
this  message,  probably  his  servant,  as  v.  ^  The  governor  does 
not  reply  by  those  who  had  brought  the  invitation,  but  sends 
messengers  of  his  own.  Perhaps  he  could  not  trust  hostile 
persons  to  give  his  exact  words.  This  reply  is,  as  our  text  runs: 
/  am  engaged  on  a  great  work  and  am  not  able  to  go  down.  Why 
should  the  work  stop  while  I  forsake  it  and  go  down  to  you?]  The 
excuse  made  is  not  the  conviction  of  a  sinister  purpose  in  the 
invitation.  Nehemiah  does  not  see  fit  to  disclose  his  suspicions, 
or  possibly  his  knowledge.  He  lays  stress  upon  his  exacting 
occupation.  The  interrogative  sentence  is  questionable,  as  we 
find  some  interesting  variants  in  @,  viz.,  lest  the  work  should  stop. 
When  I  have  finished  it,  I  will  go  down  to  you.  This  makes  an 
important  change  in  Nehemiah's  answer  and  reveals  his  shrewd 
purpose.  He  is  striving  to  gain  time  so  that  the  gates  may  be 
finished.  We  see  then  why  he  gives  no  hint  of  his  suspicions, 
and  indulges  in  no  defiance,  as  he  well  might  as  governor  of 
Judah;  for  he  wants  to  keep  his  enemies  idle  and  expectant 
until  he  is  in  a  sufficiently  strong  position  openly  to  defy  them. 
The  superiority  of  this  text  is  evident,  and  the  change  required 
in  MT.  is  not  very  great.  It  does,  however,  make  Nehemiah 
indulge  in  a  somewhat  vague  promise  to  do  what  he  presumably 
never  expected  to  do,  vague  because  the  clause  "when  his  work 
was  finished"  might  point  to  a  very  indefinite  period  indeed. — 
^.  And  they  sent  unto  me  according  to  this  word  four  times],  that 
is  substantially  the  same  message,  possibly  with  an  addition, 
like  "the  matter  is  too  important  for  delay."  If  MT.  is  ac- 
cepted in  V.  ^,  then  the  "four  times"  is  unintelligible.     If  (S 


252  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

is  received,  then  the  repetition  of  the  request  with  increased 
urgency  and  Nehemiah's  reiterated  reply,  "I  will  go  down  as 
soon  as  I  finish  the  work,"  are  alike  clear.  But  curiously  (B, 
which  requires  it,  lacks  the  "four  times,"  and  MT.,  which  can- 
not endure  it,  contains  the  words.  To  find  a  true  original  text, 
selection  is  frequently  essential. 

5-9.  Sanballat  sends  a  letter  to  Nehemiah  trying  to  alarm 
him  with  a  report  that  he  was  aiming  at  royalty. — 5.  Accord- 
ing to  this  word]  is  a  meaningless  repetition  from  v.  *.  The 
phrase  could  only  be  retained  by  a  loose  interpretation  like 
"for  a  similar  purpose." — A  fifth  time]  referring  to  the  four 
times  of  v. ''.  This  time  Sanballat,  who  alone  is  credited  with 
action,  sends  his  servant,  but  the  servant  is  not  his  spokes- 
man, for  he  carries  an  open  letter  in  his  hand].  Why  Sanballat 
changed  from  oral  messages  to  a  written  document  is  not  made 
clear — possibly  to  make  the  damaging  charge  more  forcible. 

Many  efforts  have  been  made  to  explain  the  statement  that  the 
letter  was  open.  In  Je.  32"  we  have  the  statement  that  the  purchaser 
of  land  was  given  "a  deed  [book]  of  purchase,  the  sealed  and  the  open." 
This  may  be  explained  by  comparison  with  a  Bab.  contract  tablet  in 
which  the  real  document  was  covered  with  an  outer  envelope  of  clay 
upon  which  a  summary  of  the  contents  was  written.  If  Sanb.  sent  a 
tablet,  as  is  surely  possible,  the  mng.  is  that  there  was  no  outer  en- 
velope. We  are  still  in  the  dark,  however,  as  to  why  attention  is 
called  to  this  fact.  The  common  idea  that  an  open  letter  was  insulting 
— as  held,  e.  g.,  by  Thomson,  Laud  and  Book,  iii," — is  wrong,  for  it  would 
be  stupid  for  Sanb.  to  insult  a  man  whom  he  was  trying  to  entice  to  a 
meeting.  It  is  tempting  to  change  a  single  Heb.  letter  and  rd.  "a. large 
letter."  The  letter  was  short  so  far  as  our  information  goes,  but  it  was 
long  relatively  to  the  short  oral  messages,  and  we  may  have  only  a  sum- 
mary.    Or  "open"  may  be  a  technical  term  no  longer  understood. 

6.  The  charge  now  made,  Sanballat  says,  came  to  him  from 
reports  among  the  nations,  the  foreign  peoples  surrounding 
Judah. — And  Gashmu  says]  is  troublesome.  It  can  hardly  mean 
that  Gashmu — before  called  Geshem — indorses  the  report,  the 
implication  of  EV*.  We  may  omit  with  (S,  or  understand  so 
Gashmu  says.  Sanballat  is  the  author  of  the  letter,  but  he 
makes  his  co-conspirator  the  author  of  the  report. — Thou  and 


NEHEMIAH   6  253 

the  Judeans  are  minding  to  rebel].  This,  of  course,  is  a  serious 
charge:  therefore  thou  dost  build  the  wall],  not  as  a  defence  against 
such  foes  as  Sanballat,  but  against  a  possible  Persian  army. — 
And  thou  wilt  become  for  them  a  king].  The  charge  is  now,  indeed, 
grave.  To  change  from  satrap  to  king  would  be  an  open  act 
of  rebellion.  This  is  a  similar  accusation  to  that  by  which  the 
Jews  finally  made  Pilate  listen  to  their  cries  (Jn.  19^2  f.)_  f  i^g 
charge  appears  plausible  enough  in  itself  in  view  of  the  general 
restlessness  of  subject  peoples,  the  Jews  in  particular  having  a 
genius  for  rebellion. — According  to  these  words]  must  either  be 
omitted,  for  sense  cannot  be  forced  into  it  in  this  connection, 
or  transferred  to  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  thus:  in  it  was 
written  according  to  these  words]. — 7.  The  gravamen  of  the  letter 
was  the  suspected  aspiration  toward  royalty.  Upon  this  point 
the  changes  are  rung:  Even  prophets  thou  hast  set  up  to  proclaim 
concerning  thee  in  Jerusalem].  In  the  old  kingdom  of  northern 
Israel  most  of  the  numerous  revolutions  were  instigated  by 
prophets  {v.  my  Hebrew  Prophet,  c.  7),  but  we  naturally  suppose 
that  men  like  Ahijah  and  Elisha  acted  in  accord  with  the  spirit 
of  God  which  was  in  them.  In  the  time  of  Judah's  dependency 
prophets  were  active  in  fomenting  rebellion  {v.,  e.  g.,  Je.  28). 
They  were  the  natural  media  for  this  purpose  because  they  were 
patriotic.  But  unfortunately  there  is  abundant  evidence  that 
it  was  easy  to  find  prophets  to  proclaim  whatever  was  desired. 
Balak  could  not  understand  a  prophet  who  would  not  speak  as 
he  was  paid.  Zechariah  had  pretty  nearly  said  of  Zerubbabel 
that  he  would  be  king  (Zc.  4''  ^■).  We  know  that  there  were 
hordes  of  prophets  in  Jerusalem  in  the  postexilic  period  {He- 
brew Prophet,  c.  4).  It  is  perfectly  possible  that  some  of  these 
had  actually  said  the  words  charged  by  Sanballat,  but  it  is 
certain  that  Nehemiah  had  not  inspired  their  utterances,  for 
these  prophets  were  a  despised  class  (Zc.  i3'^"^),  and  Nehemiah 
would  not  be  likely  to  have  dealings  with  them.  If  we  may 
judge  from  Zc.  the  prophets  of  the  period  deserved  the  con- 
tempt in  which  they  were  held  (Sta.^-").  The  prophecy  which 
Nehemiah  was  accused  of  instigating  consists  of  two  words  in 
Hebrew,  but  requires  more  space  in  English:  there  is  a  king 


254  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

in  Judah].  The  idea  is  that  this  terse  oracle  would  be  reit- 
erated again  and  again,  until  the  passions  of  the  people  were 
aroused  for  action.  Some  texts  of  CI  render  quite  differently: 
thou  hast  set  up  prophets  for  thyself,  that  thou  mayst  sit  [or  rule] 
in  Jerusalem  for  a  king  over  Judah.  There  is  no  advantage  in 
this  reading,  but  it  shows  the  difficulty  in  the  ancient  deciphering 
of  obscure  passages  in  mss.  The  danger  of  such  reports  is  now 
plainly  indicated:  and  now  it  will  he  reported  to  the  king  accord- 
ing to  these  words]  or  better  with  (&  B :  these  matters  will  he  reported 
to  the  king,  i.  e.,  Artaxerxes.  Sanballat's  letter  is  very  shrewd: 
he  does  not  himself  make  a  charge,  but  pretends  to  give  friendly 
information  of  the  dangerous  gossip  which  is  so  widespread  that 
the  Persian  king  is  sure  to  hear  it.  It  does  not  matter  whether 
it  is  true  or  not.  If  such  a  report  reached  the  ears  of  a  sovereign, 
ever  suspicious  of  disloyalty  in  subject  peoples,  the  result  would 
be  disastrous,  even  though  the  charge  were  false. — Sanballat 
concludes  by  repeating  the  substance  of  his  first  message,  v.  ^: 
and  now  come  and  let  us  take  counsel  together],  or  possibly  meet  to- 
gether. The  object  of  the  conference  is  made  to  appear  friendly 
that  they  might  counsel  as  to  the  best  means  of  extricating 
the  satrap  from  a  situation  full  of  peril  to  him. — 8.  And  I 
sent  unto  him],  whether  by  a  written  or  oral  reply  we  are  not 
informed. — //  has  not  heen  done  according  to  these  words  which 
thou  sayest,  hut  thou  inventest  them  from  thy  heart].  The  reply 
is  brief  and  covers  two  points,  a  general  denial  of  the  accusation, 
and  the  assertion  that  Sanballat  had  made  it  out  of  whole 
cloth.  Nehemiah  may  mean  merely  to  deny  that  he  has  any 
disloyal  aspirations,  but  he  may  mean  to  deny  the  charge  in 
toto,  even  that  there  was  any  such  report  among  the  foreign 
neighbours.  At  last  he  speaks  plainly  to  the  enemy  and  by  ac- 
cusing him  of  manufacturing  the  story  in  his  own  mind  breaks 
off  all  negotiations.  Meanwhile  the  work  on  the  gates  had 
reached  a  point  enabling  him  boldly  to  scorn  his  enemies. — 
9.  This  verse  cannot  be  original.  It  may  be  wholly  an  inter- 
polation by  the  Chronicler  or  a  modification  of  some  comment  of 
Nehemiah,  now  no  longer  recoverable. — All  of  them  would  make 
us  afraid],  but  it  was  Sanballat  alone  who  wrote  the  letter. — 


NEHEMIAH  6  255 

Their  hands  will  let  go  the  work  and  it  will  not  he  done].  The  work 
is,  as  always  in  N.,  the  wall-building.  Sanballat  had  tried  to 
stop  that,  but  as  the  wall  was  already  finished,  v.  ^,  an  effort 
to  scare  the  people  from  the  task  is  manifestly  out  of  place 
here. — And  now  strengthen  my  hands]  is  a  fragment  of  a  prayer 
which  may  be  genuine.  On  account  of  its  broken  character 
and  to  make  it  fit  the  context,  ^  has  rendered,  /  strengthened 
my  hajids.  In  this  form  the  clause  might  be  a  part  of  the  sec- 
tion following. 

10-14.  Shemaiah  the  prophet  is  hired  by  the  enemy  to 
persuade  Nehemiah  to  do  some  act  by  which  he  might  be  dis- 
credited.— In  large  part  this  narrative  is  obscure,  the  text  is 
corrupt  in  places,  and  there  are  transactions  indicated  which 
are  no  longer  intelligible. — 10.  And  I  went  to  the  house  of  Shem- 
aiah.] The  name  occurs  many  times  in  our  books,  but  this 
person  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere.  Sachau  cites  the  name  of 
Shemaiah  and  his  father  Delaiah  in  illustration,  but  the  names 
there  are  Delaiah  and  Shelemaiah  (Pap.  u.  Ost."^^).  He  is  par- 
ticularised from  the  others  by  naming  his  father  and  grand- 
father, whose  names  are  not  found  otherwise  in  our  sources. 
He  was  certainly  a  prophet,  but  a  corrupt  one,  and  that  is  all 
we  know  about  him.  For  what  purpose  Nehemiah  went  to 
his  house  is  not  clear.  /  is  emphatic,  though  that  use  of 
the  pronoun  for  emphasis  is  weakened  by  repetition  in  our 
sources,  being  especially  common  in  N.  It  is  probable  that 
the  governor  depended,  to  a  certain  extent,  upon  the  prophets 
for  information  about  the  purposes  and  plans  of  the  enemy. 
The  prophets  were  often  possessed  of  much  political  informa- 
tion, and  that  is  the  object  of  his  voluntarily  seeking  out  Shem- 
aiah, V.  i. — And  he  was  shut  up].  Tliis  cannot  mean  that  he 
was  ceremonially  unclean,  as  Robertson  Smith  suggests,  for  the 
prophet  straightway  proposes  that  they  shall  go  to  the  temple. 
The  meaning  can  hardly  be  "kept  under  cover,"  as  in  Je.  36^, 
for  Shemaiah  was  in  his  own  house.  "Secretly"  as  H  has,  per- 
haps by  interpretation,  is  not  right,  for  Nehemiah  would  scarcely 
have  gone  secretly  to  a  paid  tool  of  Sanballat 's.  Since  the  fol- 
lowing "and  he  said"  lacks  an  introduction,  we  may  best  sup- 


256  EZR  A-NEHEMIAH 

pose  there  was  originally  in  the  text  something  like  "now  he 
had  sent  for  me."  Shemaiah  was  the  one  desiring  the  interview, 
and  Nehemiah  came  to  his  house  at  his  request.  The  plot 
which  the  prophet  pretends  to  reveal  would  be  abundant  reason 
for  his  summons.  Or  it  may  be  that  the  original  read,  now  he 
was  a  prophet;  that  statement  would  be  helpfully  enlightening 
here. — Shemaiah's  proposal  is:  let  us  meet  at  the  house  of  God  in 
the  midst  of  the  temple  and  let  us  shut  the  doors  of  the  temple].  The 
verb  is  very  suspicious  in  the  first  clause.  The  two  who  would 
go  together  could  hardly  meet  by  appointment.  Shemaiah's 
idea  is  plainly  that  they  should  conceal  themselves  and  thus 
avoid  the  danger  which  is  impending.  "Temple"  as  distin- 
guished from  "house  of  God"  would  mean  the  inner  sanctuary, 
and  that  would  naturally  be  the  best  place  of  refuge.  The  holy 
of  holies  in  Zerubbabel's  temple  therefore  had  doors  of  its  own, 
which  would  be  shut  for  more  effective  concealment.  Shemaiah's 
meaning  is  evidently  that  assassins  would  not  look  for  their 
victim  in  such  an  unwonted  place. — The  reason  for  hiding  is 
given  in  impressive  amplitude  in  the  text,  the  redundancy,  how- 
ever, not  occurring  in  the  best  Greek  versions: /or  they  are  coming 
in  to  slay  thee,  yea,  at  night  they  are  coming  hi  to  slay  thee].  The 
character  of  the  message  implies  that  Shemaiah  had  sought  the 
interview.  The  assassins  are  naturally  the  emissaries  of  San- 
ballat,  who  could  get  into  the  city  in  some  disguise.  At  night 
is  general,  but  the  impression  conveyed  is  this  very  night,  and  if 
that  were  the  correct  reading  the  repetition  would  be  less  ob- 
jectionable. There  would  be  no  use  hiding  in  the  sanctuary 
against  foes  coming  "some  night."  The  urgency  of  the  situ- 
ation would  explain  Shemaiah's  sending  for  the  governor  at 
this  particular  time. — 11.  Nehemiah's  reply,  as  our  text  stands, 
is  in  parts  sadly  lacking  in  clearness:  should  a  man  like  me  flee? 
And  who  is  there  like  me  that  should  go  into  the  temple  and  live? 
J  will  not  go  in].  (&^  has  at  least  a  more  intelligible  text:  who  is 
the  man  that  would  go  into  the  house  and  live?  i.  e.,  to  save  his  life. 
The  air  is  cleared,  perhaps  sufficiently,  by  dropping  the  second 
like  me,  which  is  an  error  by  dittography.  Then  we  would  have: 
should  a  man  like  me,  holding  the  highest  position  iti  the  state, 


NEHEMIAH   6  257 

and  so  carrying  great  responsibilities,  fiee  from  danger?  And  even 
so,  who  is  the  man  [so  cowardly  and  base]  that  would  enter  the  tem- 
ple, not  to  pray  or  offer  sacrifice,  but  to  save  his  life?  The  temple 
is  a  place  for  worship,  not  an  asylum  in  time  of  danger. 

12.  And  I  discerned,  and  lo!  no  God  had  sent  him],  so  we  may 
represent  the  unusual  place  of  the  negative  in  the  original. 
How  Nehemiah  recognised  that  Shemaiah  spoke  without  in- 
spiration is  a  mystery.  Perhaps  in  a  very  human  way:  Nehe- 
miah could  not  accept  the  counsel  of  the  prophet;  if  the  word 
had  been  of  God,  he  must  obey;  as  he  refused  to  hearken,  he 
could  only  justify  his  course  by  drawing  the  conclusion,  cer- 
tainly justified,  that  no  God  had  part  in  the  message. — For  the 
prophecy  he  spoke  unto  me],  after  which  we  should  expect  a 
clause  like,  came  from  his  own  heart,  to  make  an  antithesis  to 
no  God  had  sent  him.  It  may  be  that  we  should  read:  for  the 
prophetess  had  spoken  to  me,  v.  i.  on  v.  ",  and  thus  he  had  re- 
ceived warning  of  the  plot. — And  Tobiah  and  Sanballat  had 
hired  him].  This  text  we  may  accept  as  reasonably  certain, 
though  Guthe  gives  some  weight  to  a  Greek  reading  had  hired 
a  multitude.  But  while  we  might  believe  that  the  foe  had 
bribed  several  people  in  Jerusalem,  the  collective  term  multi- 
tude or  crowd  could  scarcely  be  applied  to  Shemaiah.  Further, 
the  statement  is  necessary  to  explain  Shemaiah 's  attempt  to 
lead  the  governor  astray;  for  he  would  scarcely  take  such  a 
course  of  his  own  accord.  The  bribe  explains  his  action. 
13.  In  order  that  he  be  bribed],  the  only  permissible  rendering, 
shows  the  impossibility  of  the  text.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that 
the  words  are  a  dittographic  repetition.  It  suffices  to  drop  in 
order  that,  so  we  should  have  he  was  bribed  in  order  that  I  might, 
etc.  The  rest  of  the  verse  connects  directly  with  v.  ^^^  explain- 
ing why  Shemaiah  was  hired:  in  order  that  I  might  be  afraid  and 
do  thus  and  sin,  and  it  [I]  should  be  to  them  for  an  evil  name,  in 
order  that  they  might  reproach  me].  With  (5  we  may  read  / 
instead  of  it,  though  it  might  be  explained  with  some  forcing. 
Do  thus  can  only  refer  to  hiding  in  the  temple. 

The  sinnin,?;  must  refer  to  his  taking  asylum  in  the  temple.     The 
whole  thing  then  reduces  to  two  points,  showing  cowardice,  and  enter- 


258  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ing  the  sanctuary.  A  leader  who  is  a  coward  can  scarcely  pilot  the 
ship  of  state  unless  the  seas  are  very  smooth.  Neh.  would,  indeed,  get 
an  evil  name  if  he  were  known  as  a  coward  and  as  one  who  misused  the 
temple.  We  might  well  ask  what  harm  it  would  do  Neh.  if  his  enemies 
had  grounds  to  heap  reproaches  upon  him.  Neh.,  indeed,  was  little 
concerned  with  what  his  enemies  outside  the  city  might  say;  but  their 
effort  in  this  stroke  was  to  weaken  his  influence  in  the  city  among  those 
over  whom  he  ruled.  Once  get  him  to  show  timidity  and  they  would 
have  a  story  to  circulate  which  would  undermine  his  great  influence  and 
power.  This  section  is  important  because  it  is  the  first  intimation  we 
have  that  Neh.  had  enemies  in  the  city,  enemies  not  due  to  his  acts 
but  to  Sanb.'s  pay. 

14.  Another  imprecation  is  poured  out  against  the  two 
bribers  (r/.  3^6  f-):  Remember,  0  my  God,  against  Tohiah  and 
Sanhallat  according  to  these  their  deeds].  We  note  the  absence  of 
Geshem:  cf.  absence  of  Tobiah,  v.  ^.  As  we  have  really  ''his 
deeds"  perhaps  Tobiah  is  a  gloss.  The  prayer  is  that  God 
would  do  to  them  as  they  had  vowed  to  do  to  him.  He  asks 
God  to  remember  their  evil  deeds,  as  he  had  asked  for  the  re- 
membrance of  his  own  righteous  acts,  cf.  51^.  The  rest  of  the 
verse  may  be  interpreted  in  two  exactly  opposite  senses,  ac- 
cording to  the  text  we  accept.  MT.  makes  it  a  continuation 
of  the  imprecation,  but  directed  toward  Noadiah  the  prophetess 
and  the  rest  of  the  prophets  who  were  scaring  me].  This  is  diffi- 
cult, for  surely  Shemaiah  would  be  named  and  not  included  in 
the  group  of  "the  rest  of  the  prophets."  Again,  the  meaning 
would  have  to  be  who  tried  to  scare  me;  "would  have  put  me 
in  fear,"  ARV.  The  English  translators  strove  for  intelligi- 
bility, but  that  rendering  is  certainly  not  extractable  from  the 
Hebrew.  Quite  another  sense  is  given  by  a  reading  in  (i>  ,  in 
which  the  remembrance  for  evil  of  v.  ^  becomes  now  a  remem- 
brance for  good  toward  the  prophets,  who  were  giving  me  warn- 
ing. We  thus  understand  the  omission  of  Shemaiah.  Noadiah, 
a  prophetess  not  otherwise  mentioned,  was  working  for  Nehe- 
miah  as  Shemaiah  was  working  against  him.  She  may  be  the 
prophetess  suggested  in  v.  ^2,  who  disclosed  the  source  of  Shem- 
aiah's  cunning  advice.  While  the  change  from  imprecation  to 
supplication  is  surprising,  on  the  whole  the  latter  interpretation 
seems  preferable. 


NEHEMIAH   6  259 

15-19.  The  completion  of  the  walls  produces  consterna- 
tion among  the  enemy  and  fear  among  the  nations.  Further 
plots  are  revealed  in  Jerusalem. — 15.  Attd  the  wall  was  com- 
pleted on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  Elul].  Elul,  mentioned  only  here, 
is  the  6th  month,  corresponding  to  August-September.  The 
wall  was  completed  therefore  about  September  10.  Of  the 
fifty-second  day].  This  reckoning,  in  spite  of  the  reproduced 
awkward  phrasing,  must  mean  the  period  within  which  the 
walls  were  reconstructed.  The  shortness  of  the  time  has 
aroused  wonder  in  some  quarters  and  suspicion  in  others.  The 
work  must  have  been  done  with  astonishing  celerity.  The 
enemy  were  constantly  surprised  at  the  rapid  progress.  It 
seemed  to  the  nations  the  work  of  God,  v.  ^^,  because  concluded 
with  miraculous  speed.  There  was  every  incentive  for  Nehe- 
miah  to  rush  the  defences  of  the  city.  There  was  evidently  a 
vast  force  at  work,  and  skilfully  distributed  so  as  not  to  interfere 
with  each  other.  Josephus,  who  followed  the  Esd.  text,  gives 
two  years  and  four  months  as  the  time  for  the  work  on  the  walls 
{Ant.  xi,  5,  8).  If  the  date  Elul  is  correct,  it  was  less  than  six 
months  since  Nehemiah  obtained  leave  of  absence  from  Arta- 
xerxes,  2^.  He  could  therefore  scarcely  have  been  in  Jerusalem 
much  more  than  two  months.  The  whole  verse  looks  like  the 
work  of  the  Chronicler,  and  yet  some  statement  about  the  wall 
is  natural  here. — 16.  That  this  verse  is  hopeless  as  it  stands 
is  shown  by  a  fairly  literal  rendering:  and  it  was  when  all  our 
enemies  heard — and  all  the  nations  round  about  us  were  afraid, 
and  they  fell  greatly  in  their  eyes,  and  they  knew  that  this  work  had 
been  done  of  God. 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  we  can  clear  up  the  passage:  (i)  By  as- 
suming an  ellipsis  which  told  the  effect  upon  the  enemy  of  hearing  about 
the  completion  of  the  walls.  (2)  By  supposing  that  "all  the  nations 
round  about  us"  is  an  interpolation  by  the  Chr.  to  whom  enemy  and 
foreigner  were  syn.  The  real  sense  seems  to  be:  when  our  enemies 
heard,  they  fell  greatly  in  their  own  eyes,  and  they  were  exceedingly  afraid. 
In  the  text  as  it  stands,  and  they  fell  greatly  in  their  eyes,  we  have 
to  assume  "they"  to  refer  to  the  enemy  and  "their"  to  the  nations. 
Such  looseness  is  hardly  conceivable  in  such  a  writing  as  we  know 
these  memoirs  to  be.    Neh.  is  all  through  describing  his  struggles  with 


26o  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

a  particular  enemy  and  "  the  nations  "  have  no  place  in  the  story.  The 
latter  part  is  clear.  As  explained  above,  on  v.  '*,  the  hand  of  God 
alone  enabled  the  Jews  to  do  such  a  stupendous  work  in  so  incredible 
a  time. 

17.  Now  we  have  further  light  on  the  desperate  attempts  of 
Tobiah  to  overthrow  the  great  leader;  for  Tobiah  becomes  the 
leader  now  in  place  of  the  discredited  Sanballat.  Two  slight 
corrections  are  necessary  to  make  good  grammar:  also  in  those 
days],  note  the  vague  reference  to  the  time,  an  expression  gen- 
erally referring  to  a  period  long  antecedent,  many  letters  from 
the  Judean  nobles  were  going  to  Tobiah,  and  Tobiah^s  [letters] 
came  in  to  thetn],  A  vigorous  correspondence  was  carried  on 
between  Tobiah  and  those  high  in  Judean  affairs,  the  object  of 
which  is  explained  in  v.  ^^^,  to  frighten  the  great  leader.  Nat- 
urally this  correspondence  was  carried  on  secretly.  Nehemiah 
may  have  learned  about  it  from  Noadiah  and  the  other  prophets 
{v.  s.  V.  ^*).  The  governor  of  ancient  times,  like  the  present 
rulers  in  despotic  governments,  must  have  an  extensive  secret- 
service  department.  Nehemiah  naturally  regards  this  corre- 
spondence as  disloyal  to  him ;  the  mere  mention  of  it  shows  his 
attitude. — 18.  For  many  in  Judah  were  conspirators  with  him], 
or  were  bound  to  him  by  an  oath,  but  the  sense  is  best  expressed 
by  conspirators  (BDB.).  These  were  the  Judean  nobles  of  v.  ^^. 
The  reason  he  could  inveigle  so  many  Jews  is  made  clear  by  his 
connections  in  marriage:  he  himself  was  son-in-laiv  to  Shekaniah]. 
Shekaniah  is  a  common  name  in  our  sources,  but  this  one  can- 
not be  identified  unless  with  one  named  in  3-*  {cf.  Che.  A.  Jr. 
Th.  1901,^").  It  is  clear  though  that  Shekaniah  must  have  been 
one  of  the  nobility  or  occupied  some  prominent  position  in 
Jerusalem.  Then  again  Tobiah  had  contrived  a  marriage  be- 
tween his  son  Johanan  and  the  daughter  of  Meshullam.  (San- 
ballat's  daughter  was  the  wife  of  Eliashib  the  chief  priest,  i^-^.) 
The  name  of  the  wife's  father  only  is  given,  because  he  was  a 
prominent  man  {cf.  Ne.  3*-  ^).  It  is  even  contended  that  he 
was  the  contemporary  head  of  the  house  of  David  (Herzfeld, 
Gesch.  Isr.  \,^^^. — 19.  The  contents  of  the  correspondence  are 
now  exposed.    Also  his  goodness  they  were  reciting  before  me]. 


NEHEMIAH  6  261 

Most  Greek  texts  have  his  words.  If  MT.  is  correct,  there  is  a 
play  on  Tobiah's  name,  which  may  be  translated  "goodness  of 
Yahweh."  The  sarcasm  is  evident.  The  purpose  would  plainly 
be  to  make  Nehemiah  think  well  of  Tobiah.  His  efforts  must 
therefore  have  been  in  line  with  Shemaiah's,  to  undo  the  gov- 
ernor by  advice  which  had  a  friendly  appearance. — And  my  words 
they  were  carrying  to  him].  Perhaps  words  may  mean  more  than 
speech  here.  Tobiah  would  be  much  more  concerned  to  know 
what  Nehemiah  did  than  to  hear  what  he  said. — Tobiah  sent 
letters  to  frighten  me],  that  is,  by  telling  Nehemiah  of  imaginary 
dangers,  v.  s.  on  v.  l^ 

Here  we  reach  the  end  of  the  long  story  of  obstacles  placed  in  Neh.'s 
path  by  the  determined  efforts  of  Sanb.  To.  and  Geshem  to  prevent  his 
restoration  of  the  defences  of  Jerus.  The  section  dealing  with  the 
walls  in  N.  {2^"-"]*,  omitting  c.  3,  5)  is  really  a  history  of  Neh.'s  success- 
ful thwarting  of  all  their  plots.  The  work  on  the  walls  is  mentioned  only 
incidentally.  We  cannot  appreciate  the  stupendous  accomplishment  of 
the  great  leader  unless  we  take  into  account  the  fact  that  the  walls 
were  restored  in  the  face  of  great  danger  and  of  constant  interference. 

1.  Tija]  (6^  (^x,oBo[A'^6Tf]. — "ps  na]  d^AvX  i^  aOxol*;  xvoi^,  i.  e.,  I'bj  ana 
or  possibly  nn,  as  i  K.  io«.  (^  has  a  dup.  uxeXetyGr]  ev  auT<p  Staxoici^, 
xal  o5  ■if.a.isks.i<^%-(\  ev  auxotq  tcvot^,  bearing  most  convincing  testimony  to 
this  reading. — 2.  n-iyij]  U  percutiamiis  focdiis  =  nmoj. — on^e;].  A  def- 
inite place  is  indicated  and  Sieg.  suggests  nn>fl3. — 3.  nn^]  (g  ^-q  xoxs, 
prob.  ]VTi^. — ^din]  (6  T£>v£tMaw  auxo,  H  vencro;  (S  shows  dn'^dk. — 4. 
'd  >'3ns]  lacking  in  (&^^^. — nrn  1213]  (§  xaxa  Tauxa,  B  juxta  sermonem 
prior  cm.  (§^  lacks  all  of  v.'',  one  of  the  rare  cases  in  which  this  cod.  has 
the  shortest  text. — 5.  nrn  -ijid]  lacking  in  (6^-^'^'.  It  is  an  erroneous 
repetition  from  v.  ^ — 'n  oys]  lacking  in  (5^'^'^';  (&,^  xeixiccov,  so  lacking 
Dj?D. — 6.  IDS  iDCJi]  lacking  in  d^^x^  gjg^_  always  otyj,  though  former 
is  prob.  correct. — nSsn  onaio]  is  meaningless  here.  (6  and  H  connect 
with  following,  xtzl  xpb?  xo6Tot<;,  reading  only  nS^ni;  U  propter  quant 
caiisam. — 7.  NipS]  )f  qucR  pradicent.  ^^'^^  Yva  xaOfoD?  (aa''')- — "t^]  ®^ 
e^aafXsuoa?. — aii3i3]  05  ot  Xoyot  =  onain,  so  H  verba  hcec  in  ace. — 
nni  . . .  njS]  differs  from  the  invitation  in  v.  =  by  a  single  letter,  x  for  i. 
Surely  the  vb.  must  be  alike  in  both  cases.  It  is  hard  to  choose,  as 
either  makes  good  sense. — 8.  ONnia]  elsw.  only  in  i  K.  12";  <S  t^suSyj, 
H  componis. — 9.  ptn]  (^^^^  IxpaTatwua;  05^  expaxatcoGrjaav  (ad  xstp^? 
[Lou);  B  conforiavi. — 10.  "ixj?  Nim]  ]J  secreto,  which  may  be  an  inter- 
pretation or  represent  "n.-iD  Nin.  Perhaps  we  should  rd.  noj  Nini,  v.  s. 
— S^inn]  bis  lacking  in  05,  but  05'-  has   %pixq   1.  vaoO. — iJtnS  . .  .  >:i] 


262  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

^BAN  g^5  sp^ovrat  w/.ihq  (poveuaat  ae  =  iJinS  nS'''?  D'<N3  ^:i.  Our  text 
shows  the  repetition  of  a  word  by  dittog. — 11.  (6^***  x.al  elxa  t(i; 
saxtv  6  dvTjp  S<;  etasXeuasTat  ec^  tov  oI/.ov  xal  J^-^jsTat  =  ik'n  !J'''Nn  id  masi 
■■m  ni3n-'?N  N31,  an  important  reading  which  has  not  received  much 
notice. — 12  f .  iai]  (S^^ax  t^^^q?  =  -13-;. — xin  niDtf  jjjdS  nsir].  Guthe 
says  truly  that  this  passage  defies  any  attempt  at  interpretation  as 
it  stands.  There  is  undoubted  evidence  of  corruption,  largely  by  a 
copyist's  error,  d  offers  some  help;  we  find:  syLcaOwaavro  Ix'  e;ji.£ 
Sx^ov^A'*,  i.  e.,  ]n^  "•Sj;  1132'.  But  this  scarcely  represents  MT.  (5^ 
has  gfAtaOcoaavTo  auxiv;  that  would  be  merely  innsii',  and  thus  we  have 
intelligibiUty.  ii3'^  tyaS  is  expHcable  as  a  case  of  dittog.,  and  nid  is  the 
misplaced  obj.  of  the  vb.  The  least  change  to  make  sense  is  to  om. 
]j;dS. — nini]  after  (^  rd.  inini. — 14.  D^X3jn]  ®b  ^f^^  Upit^y. — d^'n-i^d]  (S^ 
evouG^TOuv  =  D''ji3D,  giving  an  entirely  different  sense. — 16.  S3]  lack- 
ing in  (Sr^;  the  word  is  unnecessary. — aniji;?3  .  .  .  iSdm]  C6  has  96^01; 
{(^^  (p.  [xeya?)  as  subj.  of  Sd\  B  renders  et  concidcrent  intra  semetipsos. 
Difficult  as  the  text  is,  these  variants  offer  no  help. — 17.  D''3-id]. 
^BAN  (j^j)  xollwv  =  D-?-;::. — an^nnjN]  sf.  lacking  in  CS^^**,  so  B,  which 
has  miiltce  epistolcs. — 18.  (5  adds  to  end  of  v.  zlq  '{uytxXr.(x  =  rri'xS, 
necessary  ace.  to  Heb.  usage. — 19.  rn3ic3]  (§^-^*<  tou?  Xoyouq  auxoO  = 
m3T;   (^  Ta  auy.cpdpovTa  auTy. 


7"'^.  The  doors  are  put  in  place;  a  guard  is  stationed  to 
watch  the  gates.  On  account  of  the  magnitude  of  the  en- 
closed city  and  the  paucity  of  the  inhabitants,  Nehemiah 
calls  a  general  assembly. — 1.  This  is  the  first  part  of  a  tem- 
poral sentence:  and  it  was  ivhen  the  wall  was  built  and  I  had 
set  up  the  doors,  and  gatekeepers  were  appointed].  To  this  the 
Chronicler  was  irresistibly  drawn  to  add  the  completion  of  the 
trio  and  the  singers  and  the  Levites]  (so  Sm.  Listen,  26'"'),  who 
had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  present  situation.  The 
setting  up  of  the  gates  is  mentioned  only  incidentally,  as  a 
second  note  of  time  after  "the  wall  was  built."  We  do  not 
know  when  they  were  completed,  probably  not  within  the  fifty- 
two  days  of  6^^  We  have  only  negative  information  in  6^  The 
events  described  certainly  took  place  upon  the  finishing  of  the 
gates,  therefore  soon  after  the  story  of  c.  6.  The  gatekeepers 
were  charged  with  the  custody  of  the  gates,  and  certainly  per- 
formed some  police  duties. — 2.  Then  I  commanded  Hanani  my 
brother  and  Hananiah  the  captain  of  the  fortress  in  Jerusalem]. 
On  Hanani  v.  i-.    On  fortress  v.  2^.     The  fortress  was  probably 


NEHEMIAH    y'-^  263 

connected  with  the  temple  and  was  doubtless  the  military  head- 
quarters as  well  as  the  seat  of  government.  Hananiah  is  a  name 
recurring  frequently,  Ezr.  lo^s  Ne.  3*-  'o  10'-*  12^2. 4i_  Whether 
these  are  all  different  persons,  it  is  hard  to  say.  From  the 
particularity  of  his  mention  here  it  is  apparent  that  this  one 
cannot  be  identified  with  any  other. — Nehemiah  had  given  him 
a  position  of  trust  on  account  of  his  character,  for  he  was  like  a 
man  of  truth],  and  so  different  from  the  lying  prophets  and  con- 
spiring nobles;  and  because  of  his  religious  zeal,  and  he  feared 
God  more  than  many].  Fearing  God  is  here  following  God's  will, 
not  living  in  dread.  Nehemiah  does  not  need  to  give  any  reason 
for  the  selection  of  Hanani;  it  sufficed  that  he  was  his  own 
brother. — 3.  To  these  trustworthy  officers  Nehemiah's  orders 
are  given  for  the  safety  of  the  city,  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  shall 
not  be  opened  until  the  sun  is  hot].  The  time  is  not  very  specific, 
but  the  conditions  would  be  met  some  time  after  sunrise. — The 
next  clause  is  corrupt.  From  the  part  which  is  clear,  let  them 
close  the  doors  and  bar  them],  we  can  infer  that  the  corrupt  clause 
must  have  indicated  the  time  for  shutting  the  gates.  But  our 
text  has  and  until  they  are  standing,  which  is  meaningless.  C5 
has  as  a  substitute:  and  while  they  are  still  watching.  This  is 
clear  in  itself,  but  there  is  no  antecedent  to  the  pronoun,  for  the 
guard  is  mentioned  later.  Without  changing  the  text  much, 
we  may  get  good  sense,  while  it  is  still  standing,  "it"  referring 
to  the  sun,  and  the  time  indicated  is  then  shortly  before  sunset. 
That  corresponds  suitably  with  the  hour  for  opening  the  gates. 
The  doors  were  to  be  kept  securely  fastened  except  during  the 
hours  of  broad  daylight.  Instead  of  he  stationed]  we  must  read 
either  /  stationed  or  station  ye,  preferably  the  former. — Guards 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem].  The  great  difficulty  in  this 
treacherous  community  was  to  find  men  that  could  be  trusted. 
Those  who  lived  in  the  city  would,  at  all  events,  have  the 
strongest  motive  to  fidelity. — Each  one  in  his  watch]  shows 
that  there  was  a  regular  military  organisation;  the  guards  were 
divided  into  watches,  being  on  duty  a  certain  number  of  hours 
each  day. — And  each  one  in  front  of  his  house]  sounds  like  the 
voice  of  the  Chronicler.  The  guards  must  have  been  stationed 
on  the  walls  and  at  the  gates;  for  they  were  not  so  much  po- 


264  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

licemen  as  sentries  to  watch  against  attack  from  the  enemy 
outside.  It  is  doubtful  whether  as  yet  there  were  houses  in 
which  they  could  live,  v.  i. 

4.  Here  we  begin  a  new  section,  dealing  with  the  sparseness 
of  the  population.  Perhaps  songs  like  Ps.  127,  128,  were  com- 
posed at  this  period  by  a  poet  who  was  sympathetic  with  Nehe- 
miah. — Now  the  city  was  wide  of  hands].  Of  hands  is  omitted 
in  (S  because  not  understood.  The  phrase  wide  of  hands  is 
common,  Gn.  34*1  Ju.  iS^o  Is.  22^8  3^21  j  ch.  4^0  Ps.  10425.  This 
is  predicated  of  land,  of  the  sea,  and  of  streams.  The  mean- 
ing is  given  usually  as  wide  in  both  directions.  It  really  means 
wide  in  all  directions  and  is  equivalent  to  long  and  broad,  other- 
wise of  hands  would  add  nothing  to  wide. — And  great]  emphasises 
the  extent  of  the  city,  and  makes  an  effective  contrast  with  the 
following:  hit  the  people  in  its  midst  are  few].  Those  who  actu- 
ally lived  within  the  city  walls,  from  whom  the  guard  had  to  be 
enlisted,  were  few  in  number,  and  besides  were  obliged  virtually 
to  camp  out,  for  houses  had  not  been  built].  In  spite  of  this  the 
Chronicler  had  each  sentry  stationed  in  front  of  his  house,  v. '! 
This  statement  is  authentic  and  important.  When  Nehemiah 
came  to  Jerusalem  he  fo.und  the  temple  restored,  and  that  was 
practically  all  there  was  of  Jerusalem,  so  the  city  was  indeed 
in  ruins,  2^.  The  houses  referred  to  in  Hg.  i^  may  have  been 
without  the  city.  The  new  Judah  had  been  built  up  on  agri- 
cultural lines,  a  necessary  condition  in  a  new  community,  and 
was  without  a  headquarters.  We  can  see  clearly  that  Nehe- 
miah's  mission  was  to  restore  Jerusalem.  Now  the  city  had 
walls  and  was  safe  as  a  residence,  and  so  the  problem  confront- 
ing Nehemiah  was  to  induce  people  to  live  in  the  city  and  to 
see  that  they  had  houses  to  dwell  in.  He  proceeds  to  take 
measures  accordingly. — 5.  And  my  God  put  it  into  my  heart]. 
Doubtless  he  had  earnestly  pondered  the  grave  problem  of  this 
great  empty  space  enclosed  with  walls;  then  the  solution  comes 
to  him,  as  to  many  earnest  souls  in  ancient  times  and  modern,  by 
inspiration. — Atid  I  assembled  the  nobles  and  the  rulers  and  the 
people],  and  then  the  Chronicler,  deciding  to  attach  a  list  of 
names  at  this  point,  makes  Nehemiah  say  appropriately  for 
taking  their  genealogies].    Nehemiah  had  a  vastly  different  pur- 


NEHEMIAH   7^ 


265 


pose,  fortunately  recorded  in  most  Greek  Vrss.,  i.  e.,  for  a  con- 
ference. To  provide  people  and  houses  in  the  city  the  governor 
needs  the  co-operation  of  the  people,  and  therefore  he  calls  a 
great  assembly  to  consider  the  problem. — Aiid  I  found  the 
genealogical  record  of  those  who  came  up  in  the  former  time,  afid 
I  found  written  in  it].  This  is  the  Chronicler's  note  to  connect 
the  preceding  passage  with  his  list.  Here  we  say  farewell  to 
Nehemiah  and  his  work  until  we  reach  c.  11,  which  describes 
the  effort  to  secure  residents  for  Jerusalem  and  therefore  di- 
rectly follows. 

The  prep,  is  lacking  in  (&^;  H  de. — 3.  With  Qr.  rd.  icki]. — anny  on  i>'i] 
(5  -/.ai  £Tt  auTwv  sYPTiyopouvcwv  =  onpiy  on  iiyi;  H  cumque  adhuc  assis- 
terent.  I  should  rd.  mny  N^n  •^y;^. — vna]  (&^^^  aqjTjvouaeuaav  =  Sj;j,  ia- 
<paXtI^ea0waav^  =  rnxi.  11  oppilatce. — Tinyni]  rd.  y^'Dvr,^  or  better  T-cyxi. 
— 4.  an''  nam]  05  xXaTela^As  _|_  -^zgaX^. — 5.  ''nVx]  (5  6  Gsot;. — a'PTinSl 
and  iT'nM]  etc;  auvoSta?^'^'^  =  nnx;'^.    H  iit  recenserem  eos. 

y6-8ia  is  a  duplicate  of  Ezr.  2-31.  The  notes  are  found  on  the 
former  passage.  For  convenience  of  reference,  a  table  of  correspond- 
ing vv.  is  given.  In  the  list  of  the  Neth.  (Ezr.^-^J^  Ne."-^')  the  v.  di- 
visions are  not  the  same  in  the  two  recensions,  and  therefore  in  that 
part  the  table  is  only  approximately  correct. 


EZR. 

NE. 

EZR. 

NE. 

EZR. 

NE. 

EZR. 

NE. 

I 

6 

19 

22 

37 

40 

55 

57 

2 

7 

20 

25 

38 

41 

56 

58 

3 

8 

21) 

22  5 

26 

39 

42 

57 

59 

4 

9 

40 

43 

S8 

60 

S 

10 

23 

27 

41 

44 

59 

61 

6 

II 

24 

28 

42 

45 

60 

62 

7 

12 

25 

29 

43 

46 

61 

63 

8 

13 

26 

30 

44 

47 

62 

64 

9 

14 

27 

31 

46  1 

48 

63 

65 

10 

IS 

28 

32 

64 

66 

II 

16 

29 

33 

47 

49 

65 

67 

12 

17 

30 

48 

SO 

66 

68 

13 

18 

31 

34 

49 

SI 

67 

69 

14 

19 

32 

35 

50 

52 

68 

70 

15 

20 

33 

37 

51 

53 

69 

71,  72 

16 

21 

34 

36 

52 

54 

70 

73 

17 

23 

35 

38 

53 

55 

(3)1 

(8)i» 

18 

24 

36 

39 

54 

56 

266  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 


NE.   II.     THE    DISTRIBUTION    OF    THE    POPULATION    OF 
JUDAH. 

There  are  three  parts  to  the  c:  (i)  The  drafting  of  people  to  live  in 
Jems.,  vv.  >'•;  (2)  the  list  of  the  residents  of  the  holy  city,  vv. '-"; 
(3)  the  towns  of  the  Judean  province,  vv.  -^■'^.  The  list  is  parall.  that 
in  Ezr.  2  =  Ne.  76-",  both  lists  covering  essentially  the  same  classes, 
laity  and  temple  officers,  and  both  containing  geographical  as  well 
as  genealogical  material.  The  Hst  before  us  is  earlier,  for  here  we  find 
but  a  handful  of  people  in  Jerus.  (1,400  laity)  and  their  presence  the 
result  of  Neh.'s  special  efforts,  while  the  great  majority  of  the  people 
live  in  the  smaller  towns,  S3  of  which  were  occupied.  And  yet  it  can 
scarcely  be  in  its  original  form,  since  the  elaborate  genealogy  of  the  few 
clansmen  named  would  have  no  place.  ^  shows  expansion  since  the 
list  was  made  (see  notes).  The  text  has  certainly  suffered  from  cor- 
ruption, as  is  evidenced  by  comparison  with  the  parallel  in  i  Ch.  9, 
and  it  has  also  suffered,  hke  many  other  writings,  from  the  hands  of 
editors.  Vv.  ■  '■  connect  directly  with  7^*,  not  with  7"*  as  Sta.  (Gesck. 
ii,'*)  and  Sm.  (Listen,-^)  hold,  and  show  the  measures  adopted  by  the 
assembly  to  secure  a  population  for  the  newly  walled  city.  Ew.  has 
been  followed  by  many  scholars  in  the  belief  that  the  reference  is  to 
the  first  settlement  in  the  time  of  Cy.  The  passage  is  not  so  badly 
placed  as  that  contention  would  require.  The  hst  which  follows, 
vv.  3-2<,  originally  contained  the  names  of  those  who  had  taken  resi- 
dence in  Jerus.  The  rest,  vv. "'«,  is  an  appendix  to  show  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  remainder  of  the  people  in  the  province,  and  so  com- 
pleting the  record.  On  the  names  see  Sm.  Listen,''  ^f-,  Kost.  Wied.^''  f-, 
Mey.  EnL'^^^-. 

1.  And  the  chiefs  of  the  people  resided  in  Jerusalem].  That 
describes  the  condition  when  the  assembly  of  7*  met;  the  official 
classes  alone  resided  in  Jerusalem.  There  are  indications  here 
and  there  to  support  this  statement,  such  as  the  secret  corre- 
spondence with  Tobiah,  the  ruling  classes  being  the  Jewish  party. 
The  wealthier  people,  being  few  in  numbers,  might  live  in  the 
city,  while  the  working  people  remained  on  the  soil  from  which 
they  derived  their  living. — And  the  rest  of  the  people],  in  con- 


NEHEMIAH    II  267 

trast  to  the  preceding,  hence  the  common  people,  cast  lots  to 
bring  one  out  of  ten  to  dwell  in  Jerusalem].  As  the  lot  was  always 
deemed  sacred,  then  the  one  chosen  would  feel  a  strong  obli- 
gation to  move  to  Jerusalem.  It  is  plain  that  residence  in  the 
holy  city  was  not  considered  desirable. — And  nine  parts  [were 
left]  in  the  cities]  is  the  correct  idea.  Yet  a  strict  construction 
would  connect  with  the  lots:  one  part  to  dwell  in  Jerusalem  and 
nine  parts  allotted  to  the  cities,  i.  e.,  those  named  in  vv.  ^^  ^^ 
We  must  assume  that  all  the  common  people  had  been  residing 
in  the  cities,  such  as  are  enumerated  at  the  close  of  the  chap- 
ter, and  that  now  one-tenth  of  them  come  to  Jerusalem.  For 
hands  denoting  fractional  parts  see  also  Gn.  47^^  2  S.  19^*  2  K. 
1 1 7. — 2.  And  the  people  praised  all  the  men  who  volunteered  to 
dwell  in  Jerusalem].  Some  evidently  offered  themselves  as  res- 
idents for  the  holy  city,  and  these  would  be  in  addition  to 
those  drafted  by  lot.  The  commendation  shows  the  desperate 
plight  of  a  city  largely  devoid  of  a  population. 

3-24.  The  residents  are  treated  as  in  other  lists  by  classes. 
We  note,  as  in  Ezr.  2,  that  the  laity  precede  the  temple  ofhcers.— 
3-9.  The  list  of  laymen  in  Jerusalem.  This  is  parallel  to  i  Ch, 
g2-9. — 3.  These  are  the  chief  men  of  the  province  who  dwelt  in  Jeru- 
salem]. These  are  the  same  as  the  officers  of  the  people,  v,  ^ 
This  is  the  Chronicler's  introduction  to  the  catalogue  of  names 
which  follows. — The  rest  of  the  verse  connects  more  appro- 
priately with  vv.  20  ff;  in  fact,  it  is  a  duplicate  of  v.  2°  and  has  no 
place  here. — And  in  the  cities  of  Judah  there  dwelt,  each  man 
in  his  possession,  in  their  cities,  Israel,  the  priests  and  the  Levites 
and  the  Nethinim  and  the  sons  of  Solomon's  servants].  The  last 
class  is  not  mentioned  subsequently,  while  we  miss  from  the 
catalogue  "porters,"  v.  '^,  and  "judges,"  v."-.  If  in  their  cities 
is  authentic,  the  meaning  is  each  one  in  his  own  city.  The  list 
of  these  cities  is  found  in  vv.  -■'  '^•.  The  implication  is  that  in 
Jerusalem  dwelt  only  the  civil  officers  and  the  common  people, 
drafted  by  lot  or  volunteering,  v.  >,  while  the  temple  officials  and 
laity  alike  dwelt  in  the  towns.  The  statement  is  almost  ex- 
actly what  we  have  in  7"  =  Ezr.  2'"  and  in  i  Ch.  9-. — 4.  The 
original  sequence  to  v.-  runs:  and  in  Jerusalem  there  divelt  some 


268  EZRA-NEHEMI  AH 

oj  the  sons  of  Judah  and  of  the  sons  of  Benjamin]  see  on  Ezr.  i^. 
The  two  tribes  of  the  postexilic  period,  the  Jerusalemites  coming 
from  both  tribes,  i  Ch.  g^  adds  "Ephraim  and  Manasseh." 
Of  the  sons  of  Judah  would  connect  very  well  with  v.  ^^.  Judah 
is  individual  here,  not  tribal,  since  the  sons  are  traced  back  to 
him. 

Now  we  have  had  sufficient  intr.  to  expect  a  formidable  h*st  of  names. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  just  two,  Athaiah,  whose  ancestry  is  traced 
to  the  sixth  generation,  and  Maaseiah,  traced  to  the  eighth  generation. 
If  these  were  chief  officers,  perhaps  two  Judeans  would  be  all  that  are 
required.  The  elaborate  genealogy  marks  them  as  important  person- 
ages. Athaiah  is  of  the  sons  of  Peres].  Peres  was  a  son  of  Judah  and 
Tamar,  Gn.  38-'. — 5.  Kal-hozeh]  was  the  father  of  one  of  the  gate- 
builders,  the  ruler  of  the  district  of  Mizpah,  3^^ — The  son  of  the  Shi- 
lonite]  or  with  most  scholars  the  Shelanite,  a  descendant  of  Shelah,  an- 
other son  of  Judah  from  a  Canaanite,  Gn.  38''. — 6.  All  the  sons  of  Peres 
who  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  were  468  men  of  valour]  cannot  be  right  here,  for 
we  are  dealing  with  two  individuals,  one  of  whom  was  a  descendant 
of  Peres.  A  Gk.  text  saw  the  trouble  in  part  and  made  Maaseiah  a 
son  of  Peres;  but  that  is  an  attempt  to  correct  one  error  by  creating 
another.  The  v.  is  either  to  be  regarded  as  a  fragment  having  refer- 
ence to  the  common  people  drawn  by  lot  to  reside  in  Jerus.,  or  we 
should  substitute  Judah  for  Peres,  and  then  we  learn  that  468  Judeans 
were  living  in  the  holy  city.  In  i  Ch.  g*-^  we  find  three  clan-names, 
Uthai,  Asaiah,  and  Jeuel,  with  a  total  for  the  three  clans  of  690.  Uthai 
is  traced  to  Peres  with  four  intermediate  generations  as  against  five 
here,  and  without  a  single  name  in  common,  yet  n>ny  and  imj?  are  cer- 
tainly identical.  Asaiah  has  no  genealogy  assigned  save  that  he  is  a 
descendant  of  Shelah,  therefore  n>!:'3;c  and  r\>z'y  are  identical  {v.  Curt.). 
— 7.  Of  the  Benj.  we  are  sure  of  but  one  name,  Sallu,  who  is  carried 
back  to  the  eighth  generation  to  Isaiah,  but  not  the  well-known 
prophet. — 8.  That  this  v.  is  corrupt  is  clear  from  a  literal  rendering — • 
and  no  other  is  possible — and  after  him  Gabbai  Sallai  928].  A  Gk. 
text  offers  his  brothers  in  place  of  after  him,  but  then  the  numeral  is 
in  the  air.  We  should  expect  after  v. «  all  the  sous  of  Sallu  were  928.  It 
is  prob.  that  the  original  text  named  two  Judean  leaders  who  had  468 
followers,  and  one  Benj.  with  928  clansmen.  Gabbai  Sallai  is  as- 
sumed to  be  a  double  name,  but  that  explanation  is  very  unlikely. 
Sallai  is  a  priest  in  X2'-  ■".    The  alternative  is  to  emend  on  basis  of 


NEHEMIAH    II  269 

(&,  and  rd.:  and  his  brothers  Gabhai  and  Sallai:  all  the  sons  of  Bcnj. 
The  Chr.'s  corresponding  phrase  is  "and  their  brethren  for  their  genera- 
tions."— 9.  Overseer  over  them],  i.  e.,  over  the  928  Benj.  of  v. «. — Over 
the  second  city],  i.  e.,  one  of  the  two  districts  into  which  the  city  was 
divided  for  administrative  purposes,  3'-  '^  Senuah  occurring  also  in  i 
Ch.  9'  can  hardly  be  a  different  name  from  Senaah,  Ezr.  2"  Ne.  3^  7^8; 
V.  s.  on  Ezr.  2^^.  For  Judah  the  son  of  Senuah  the  Chr.  has  Hadaniah 
the  son  of  Senuah,  but  in  the  genealogy  of  Sallu!  In  i  Ch.  9'-^  we  find 
the  list  of  Benj.  with  four  clan-names,  Sallu,  Ibniah,  Elah,  Meshullam, 
and  the  total  is  956.  There  is  little  else  in  common.  In  Ch.  Sallu  is  a 
son  of  Hassenuah,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  the  officers. 

10-14.  The  list  of  the  priests  who  dwelt  in  Jerusalem. — 

These  are  arranged  in  three  groups:  (i)  10-12%  Jedaiah,  Jakin, 
and  Seraiah,  and  their  brethren  engaged  upon  the  work  of  the 
temple,  numbering  822;  (2)  12 ''-13'^,  Adaiah  and  his  brethren 
who  were  heads  of  the  fathers,  numbering  242;  (3)  13^-14% 
Amashsai  and  his  brethren,  men  of  valour,  numbering  128, 
making  1,192  in  all.  The  ancestry  of  the  priests  is  traced  back 
in  various  degrees,  Adaiah's  to  the  seventh  generation.  This 
is  the  same  list  found  in  i  Ch.  g^^-i^,  though  with  numerous 
variations  as  noted  below. 

10.  Jedaiah  the  son  of  Jojarib,  Jakin].  i  Ch.  9"  has  Jedaiah  and 
Jehojarib  (the  same  name)  and  Jakin.  Our  text  cannot  be  right, 
for  Jakin  lacks  the  conj.  As  Jedaiah  and  Jojarib  are  separate  pr.  in 
126-  19,  Ch.  is  more  likely  to  be  right.  Jedaiah  was  one  of  four  pr.  who 
came  from  the  captivity  in  the  time  of  Zer.  before  the  temple  was  re- 
built, Zc.  6"-  "  {v.  Mar.).  This  is  prob.  the  same  man. — 11.  This  v. 
is  identical  with  i  Ch.  9"  exc.  that  Azariah  appears  in  place  of  Seraiah 
Both  are  common  priestly  names,  occurring  together  in  lo',  and  it  is 
impossible  to  tell  which  is  correct.  Ace.  to  i  Ch.  s"  (r/.  Ezr.  7=), 
Seraiah  was  the  son  of  Azariah,  but  Seraiah 's  son  was  carried  into 
captivity  by  Nebuchadrezzar,  so  that  both  Seraiah  and  Azariah  were 
pre-ex.  pr.,  another  warning  as  to  the  dependence  to  be  placed  on  these 
lists.  The  line  in  i  Ch.  5=^  <*•  and  Ezr.  7'-  =  is  Ahitub,  Zadok,  Shallum, 
Hilkiah,  Azariah,  Seraiah,  while  ours  is  Ahitub  (Merajoth),  Zadok, 
Meshullam,  Hilkiah,  Seraiah.  Ace.  to  Ezr.  7'^  Seraiah  was  the  father 
of  Ezra. — Chief  officer  of  the  house  of  God],  i.  e.,  high  pr.  As  our  text 
stands  this  chief  pr.  may  be  either  Seraiah  or  Ahitub. — 12.  Aiid  their 
brethren  doing  the  work  for  the  house].  Ch.  more  specifically:  "the 
work  of  the  service  [or  worship]  of  the  house  of  God."  The  reference  is 
here  prob.  to  the  official  ministrations  of  the  pr.  in  the  restored  temple. 


270  EZRA-NEHEMI  AH 

though  it  may  refer  to  the  work  on  the  building  of  the  temple.  Jedaiah 
was  a  pr.  who  returned  before  the  temple  was  built. 

12b-13».  AdaiaJi].  His  ancestry  in  i  Ch.  g"  is  Jeroham,  Pashhur, 
Malchijah,  lacking  Pelaljah,  Amsi,  and  Zechariah. — 13».  His  brethren 
heads  of  the  fathers],  v.  Ezr.  iK  Ch.  has  "their  brethren  heads  for  the 
house  of  their  fathers."  These  pr.  had  a  higher  official  position  than 
those  in  the  first  group,  though  the  title  does  not  suggest  what  that 
position  was.  It  is,  strictly  speaking,  a  lay  title,  but  is  surely  applied 
to  pr.  here. 

13''-14=».  Amashsai]  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  is  a  very  dub.  Heb. 
name.  BDB.  suggests  Atnasai,  but  i  Ch.  9'=  has  Maasai,  a  very  com- 
mon postex.  name  (Gray,i'0  and  dififering  from  Atnasai  only  in  the 
order  of  the  first  two  consonants.  The  genealogy  differs  as  in  the  other 
cases,  but  the  identification  of  persons  is  clear.  The  ancestors  in  Ch. 
are  Adiel,  Jahzerah,  JNIeshullam,  Meshillemith,  and  Immer. — 14. 
A?id  their  brethren].  As  our  text  runs  we  should  rd.  Ms  brethren  as  in 
V.  ",  since  Amashsai  is  the  antecedent;  but  men  of  valour]  standing  alone 
is  a  military  term  and  hardly  applicable  to  the  pr.  In  i  Ch.  q'^  we  have 
a  statement  grouping  Jedaiah,  Adaiah,  and  Maasai,  and  combining 
12a  13b  and  14",  thus:  "and  their  brethren,  heads  for  the  house  of 
their  fathers,  1,760,  men  of  valour  for  the  work  of  the  service  of  the 
house  of  God."  The  Chr.  ignores  the  three  classes  of  our  text,  and 
makes  a  larger  total,  1,760  as  against  1,192.  The  valour  is  shown  in 
the  temple  work,  and  that  does  not  consist  in  laying  stones,  but  in  per- 
forming rites  and  ceremonies.  Ch.  therefore  shows  a  later  hand  than 
our  text. — 14^.  And  the  overseer  over  tJicm  was  Zabdiel  the  son  of  the 
great  ones].  This  name  is  not  elsw.  found  save  as  an  officer  of  David, 
I  Ch.  2-J-.  He  must  be  regarded  as  overseer  of  the  third  group  only, 
since  Jedaiah  was  the  chief  at  the  temple.  There  may  be  a  n.  p.  con- 
cealed under  the  title  "great  ones,"  but  it  is  absurd  to  regard  this  as 
such  a  name,  as  even  ARV.  does.  The  texts  of  (&  either  lack  the  title 
or  translate  it. 

15-18  =  I  Ch.  S'''"'^.  The  Levites.— The  two  Hebrew  texts 
differ  materially,  though  the  agreements  are  such  as  to  make 
original  identity  certain.  The  chief  Greek  Vrss.  show  a  shorter 
text,  containing  less  than  half  of  the  material  here.  The  list 
consists  essentially  of  the  genealogy  of  three  Levites,  Shemaiah, 
Mattaniah,  and  Abdah.  Ch.  adds  a  fourth,  Berechiah,  but  his 
name  is  lacking  here  because  he  dwelt  in  the  villages  of  the 
Netophatites,  cf.  is^^. 

15.  Shemaiah's  ancestry  is  identical  in  i  Ch.  9'*  until  we  come  to 
the  son  of  Bunni],  for  which  we  find  "of  the  sons  of  Merari,"  a  son 


NEHEMIAH    II  271 

of  Levi. — 16.  This  v.  is  represented  in  Ch.  only  by  three  n.  p.,  ot 
which  Bakbukkai  may  be  the  Bakbukiah  of  v.  ".  The  v.  is  lacking  in 
the  chief  Gk.  texts;  it  is  a  parenthetical  note  and  properly  construed 
says :  and  Skabbethai  and  Jozabad  of  the  chiefs  of  the  Lev.  were  over  the 
outside  work  of  the  house  of  God].  The  Gk.  text  which  has  this  passage 
construes  outside  with  house,  mng.,  as  in  Ez.  41",  the  holy  place  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  holy  of  holies.  But  we  find  "outside  work"  in  i 
Ch.  26",  which  is  specified  as  that  of  officers  and  judges,  therefore  it 
is  secular.  Here  the  word  differentiates  the  Lev.  work  from  the  more 
sacred  offices  of  the  pr.,  and  perhaps  refers  to  menial  tasks.— 
Chiefs  of  the  Lev.],  similar  to  "chiefs  of  the  fathers,"  applied  to  the 
pr.  in  V. ". — 17,  The  best  Gk.  texts  have  only  Mattaniah  the  son  of 
Macha  and  Obed  [Abdah]  the  son  of  Samonei,  showing  how  these  genealog- 
ical records  have  grown  even  in  late  times.  Mattaniah  is  here  a  con- 
temporary of  Neh.,  but  in  v."  he  is  three  generations  earlier.  In  i  Ch. 
9'5  we  find  Zichri  instead  of  Zabdi,  names  which  resemble  each  other 
more  closely  in  Heb.  than  in  English.  After  Asaph  we  have  four  words 
not  in  Ch.  EV^.  make  no  use  of  them.  The  words  must  give  some 
further  information  about  Mattaniah,  not  about  Asaph.  By  emending 
the  text  we  get  chief  of  tlie  praise  [singing],  teacher  of  the  [liturgical] 
prayers].  The  Lev.  had  an  important  role  in  the  public  services,  and 
Mattaniah  was  the  leader  in  the  offices. — Second  of  his  brethren]  is  a 
sore  puzzle.  Second,  however,  is  connected  with  the  preceding  "chief" 
or  "first,"  and  the  prob.  mng.  then  is  that  Bakbukiah  was  next  in  office 
to  Mattaniah  the  chief.  "His  brethren"  would  refer  to  that  section 
of  the  Ley.  who  were  trained  to  lead  the  chants  and  prayers. — Abdah 
the  son  of  Shammua].  i  Ch.  91=  has  "Obadiah  the  son  of  Shemaiah," 
differing  chiefly  in  having  iah  at  the  end  of  both  names. — 18.  All  the 
Lev.  in  tlie  holy  city  were  two  hundred  and  eighty-four].  There  were 
1,192  pr.  {v.  s.),  and  we  see  here  as  elsw.  testimony  to  the  comparative 
paucity  of  men  belonging  to  the  Levitical  order.  There  are  slightly 
more  than  four  pr.  to  each  Lev. 

19.  The  Porters. — But  two  names  are  given,  Akkub  and  Talmon. 
I  Ch.  9"  adds  Shallum  and  Ahitnan.  In  Ezr.  2*-  we  find  six  names  of 
porters,  Akkub  and  Talmon  being  among  them.  In  12"  six  porters 
are  named,  Mattaniah,  Bakbukiah,  Obadiah,  Meshullam,  Talmon,  and 
Akkub,  the  first  three  of  whom  are  in  this  list  classed  as  Levitical 
singers  (v.")- — Who  keep  watch  in  the  gates]  (lacking  in  the  best  Gk. 
texts)  is  the  only  definition  of  the  function  of  the  porters  in  these  lists. 
1  Ch.  9>'-"  gives  an  elaborate  statement  of  their  duties,  showing  that  their 
office  was  chiefly  connected  with  the  temple  gates  (of.  i  Ch.  26). — 20. 
This  V.  is  virtually  a  repetition  of  v.  ^  b,  Jt  may  serve  as  a  transition  to 
mark  the  fact  that  the  Neth.  did  not  dwell  in  Jerus.  proper.  It  would 
be  more  appropriate  as  an  intr.  to  vv.  "f-.  Vv.  ^o '■  are  lacking  in 
the  chief  Gk.  texts. — 21.  The  Neth.  were  dwelling  in  Ophel],  so  3", 


272  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

q.  V.  Of  the  leaders  of  the  Neth.,  Ziha  is  found  in  the  list,  Ezr.  2"  '• 
Ne.  7"  "  ,  but  Gishpa  is  not  found  elsw.  It  may  be  a  corruption  for 
Hasupha,  the  second  name  in  the  list  in  Ezr.  2. 

22-24.  Miscellaneous  notes  about  certain  officers  and 
about  the  singers. — 22".  The  chief  of  the  Levites  in  Jerusalem 
was  Uzzi]  seems  to  belong  to  the  list  of  Levites,  vv.  ^^-^*;  (S  lacks 
"in  Jerusalem,"  better  adapting  the  clause  to  its  present  place. 
Uzzi's  ancestry  is  in  part  common  with  Shemaiah's  and  Mat- 
taniah's,  w.  ^^-^^. — 22*'-23.  The  singers. — The  confusion  in  the 
list  is  very  marked  here,  but  on  the  whole  it  is  best  to  follow 
MT.  and  begin  a  new  section  with  of  the  sons  of  Asaph],  though 
Mika  is  a  grandson  of  Asaph  according  to  4^^. — The  singers  were 
over  the  business  of  the  house  of  God],  so  ARV.  "  Over  "  is  doubt- 
ful, as  the  original  means  rather  in  front  of.  It  may  be  that  an 
attempt  was  made  to  say  that  the  quarters  of  the  singers  were 
in  front  of  the  temple. 

23.  For  the  commandment  of  the  king  was  upon  them],  cf.  i22<,  where  in 
accord  with  the  theory  of  the  Chr.  the  king  who  instituted  the  temple 
ritual  was  David,  and  David  is  meant  here. — And  a  settled  provision 
for  the  singers,  as  every  day  required]  as  ARV.  is  surely  wrong,  for  we  are 
not  dealing  with  the  support  of  the  singers,  but  with  their  duties.  It 
is  diflScult  to  render  n:cN  in  any  satisfactory  way.  Some  texts  of  ^ 
show  another  word,  "stood  over  the  singers."  On  the  basis  of  this 
hint,  we  may  conjecture:  he  imposed  upon  the  singers  the  duty  of  a  day 
in  its  day.  This  resembles  closely  the  confused  note  in  Ch.  David 
e.xacted  of  the  singers  the  strict  and  punctual  performance  of  their 
daily  duties. — 24.  And  Pethahiah  the  son  of  Meshezabel  of  the  sons  of 
Zerah  the  son  of  Judah  was  at  the  king^s  hand  for  all  business  with  the 
people].  We  are  suddenly  removed  far  away  from  temple  officials  and 
services  and  plunged  into  civilian  affairs.  This  v.  would  fit  a  record  of 
the  royal  officers  such  as  we  find  in  2  S.  8'^  f-. 

25-36.  The  Judeans  and  the  Benjamites  outside  of  Jeru- 
salem.— The  list  is  no  longer  genealogical,  but  geographical; 
we  have  not  a  list  of  the  heads  of  clans,  but  of  the  towns  in- 
habited by  Jews  in  the  postexilic  period.  These  are  in  the  old 
Benjamite  and  Judean  territories.  Jerusalem  is  the  centre,  but 
the  holy  city  was  on  the  ancient  borderland  between  Judah 


NEHEMIAH    II  273 

and  Benjamin.    The  postexilic  Judea  comprises  territory  on 
the  north  and  still  more  on  the  south. 

The  Judean  list  is  contained  in  vv.  "■'»  and  comprises  seventeen 
towns,  located  from  Beersheba  to  the  environs  of  Jerus.  Of  Benj. 
towns  there  are  sixteen  in  vv. "-'".  After  some  of  the  names  we  have 
"daughters,"  6  t.,  after  others  "villages"  (bis),  after  one  (Lachish) 
"fields,"  all  in  connection  with  the  Judean  list  exc.  one  (Bethel).  Of 
the  seventeen  Judean  towns,  all  but  two,  Jeshua  (v.  =«)  and  Meconah 
(v.  28)  J  are  in  the  list  of  towns  assigned  to  Judah  in  Jos.  15,  and  the  order 
is  the  same  in  both  lists.  Of  the  fifteen  or  sixteen  Benj.  towns,  but 
three,  Geba,  Bethel,  and  Ramah,  are  among  the  fourteen  assigned  to 
Benj.  in  Jos.  18.  On  the  other  hand,  seven  are  found  among  the 
places  enumerated  in  Ezr.  2  =  Ne.  7,  while  not  one  of  the  Judean  towns 
finds  a  place.  Possibly  the  Judeans  were  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the 
holy  city,  and  the  Benj.  were  the  country  people  so  often  mentioned 
as  living  in  their  toivns.  Of  all  these  thirty-three  towns  but  one 
occurs  in  the  list  of  places  from  which  the  wall-builders  came,  i.  e., 
Zanoah,  v.  ^o  {cj.  Ne.  3").  A  comparison  with  the  shorter  lists  of  CS 
suggests  that  names  have  been  added  in  the  list  at  a  late  period;  such 
additions  would  be  made  as  the  population  spread  so  as  to  keep  the 
list  up  to  date. 

25-30.  The  Judean  towns. — 25.  And  unto  the  villages  in  their  fields] 
evidently  requires  something  preceding.  It  would  connect  very  well 
with  2^,  showing  the  disposition  of  the  nine  parts  not  allotted  to 
Jerus.  We  can  join  to  this  more  immediately  the  misplaced  v.  ^o; 
making  some  necessary  corrections  by  comparison  with  v.  ^  and  i  Ch. 
Q-,  we  have :  and  the  rest  of  Israel  were  in  all  their  cities,  each  one  in  his 
possession,  and  [spread]  unto  the  villages  in  their  fields. — Some  of  the  sotts 
of  Jiidah  divelt],  the  others,  of  course,  being  those  in  Jerus.  as  described 
in  vv.  *  ^■.  There  follows  the  list  of  seventeen  towns.  Dibon  is  a  city 
of  Moab,  prob.  to  be  identified  with  the  Judean  Dimonah  (Haupt,  in 
ZA,  1887,268).  Yekabsccl  appears  in  Jos.  152'  as  Kabseel,  so  2  S.  233"  i  Ch. 
II";  of  course,  the  same  place  is  meant. — 26.  In  Jeshtia].  This  sounds 
rather  strange  as  a  place-name.  As  no  such  name  is  known,  and  as  an 
unheard-of  place  is  scarcely  possible  in  a  list  like  this,  the  other  names 
being  common,  we  have  to  suppose  a  corruption,  as  (S^  suggests,  or 
that  in  Jeshua  is  a  marginal  note,  originally  intended  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  these  names  were  to  be  found  in  the  book  of  Jos. 
— 28.  Meconah]  does  not  occur  elsw.  Doubtless  it  is  a  corruption  for 
njmn,  occupying  the  corresponding  place  in  Jos.  15''. — 29.  En-rimmon] 
is  incorrectly  divided  in  Jos.  15^=,  "Ain  and  Rimmon."  On  Zorah 
see  Moore's  Judges,^^^. — Its  fields].  The  term  originally  meant  moun- 
tain or  ivild  land,  but  here  the  reference  is  to  the  cultivated  land  (GAS. 
Jer.  i,"')- — 30.  And  they  encajnped  from  Beersheba  to  Ce-hifinom].   The 


2  74  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

valley  of  Hinnom  ran  along  the  western  wall  of  Jerus.,  and  is  given  in 
Jos.  15'  as  the  northern  boundary  of  Judah.  Beersheba  was  the  pro- 
verbial southern  limit  of  the  whole  land.  The  term  "encamped," 
though  parall.  "dwelt"  in  v.  2^,  suggests  a  temporary  condition,  and  so 
gives  colour  to  the  theory  that  this  c.  was  originally  intended  to  de- 
scribe the  settlement  of  a  caravan  which  had  recently  arrived. 

31-36.  The  Benjamite  towns. — The  first  clause  has  puzzled  inter- 
preters. "The  children  also  of  Benj.  from  Geba  dwelt  at  Michmash" 
of  AV.  was  revised  to  "the  children  of  Benj.  also  dwelt  from  Geba 
onward,  at  Michmash,"  in  ARV.  The  fact  is  that  we  have  a  slight 
corruption  of  a  single  letter,  and  the  true  text  reads  very  simply: 
and  the  sons  of  Benj.  in  Geba,  Michmash,  etc. — 33.  Nob]  is  doubtless 
the  same  as  Nebo,  Ezr.  2". — Ananiah]  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  is 
certainly  corrupt. — 34  Hazor]  is  doubtless  the  same  as  Baal-hasor, 
2  S.  1323,  as  the  situation  on  the  border  between  Ephraim  and  Benj. 
favours  such  identification. — GiUaim]  elsw.  only  in  2  S.  4',  where  it 
appears  to  be  a  Benj.  place. — 35.  Neballat]  is  found  nowhere  else. — 
Ge-haharashim]  means  valley  of  the  craftsmen,  but  n.  pr.  loc.  is  required 
here,  as  in  i  Ch.  4".  It  was  prob.  a  wady  near  Jerus.,  known  as  the 
residence  of  a  certain  class  of  workmen.  Ace.  to  i  Ch.  4"  it  was  founded 
by  Joab. — -36.  Lit.,  and  from  the  Lev.  portions  of  Judah  for  Benj.],  the 
mng.  of  which  may  be  and  some  of  the  Lev.  had  allotments  of  Judah  and 
of  Benj. 

3.  D^jPjn]  lacking  in  (&^^. — 4.  n>rj.']  01'^  A0apaa6aq  =  xna'inn, — ij3d] 
<8  xal  axb  uiwv. — 5.  ''jScn].  The  pointing  should  be — ^t-''?^,  from  n'?^; 
<&  Tou  AfjXwve^'^,  HXwvt^,  StqXwvsi^;  (S  makes  DTyn  one  of  the  sons  of 
Peres,  having  of  the  sons  of  Peres,  corresponding  to  of  the  sons  of  Judah 
in  V.  ■*. — 8.  (B'^  has  xod  oxtaw  auroG  ol  aSeXqjol  auxoG  FePoue  2t)X££c.  ol 
■Konxsq  svvaxoatot  s't/,oai  oxTtb  toO  Bevtafjitv.  I  suspect  a  dup.  at  the  be- 
ginning rather  than  a  plus,  vnNi  being  rd.  instead  of  innN,  the  original 
being,  therefore:  .  .  .  ]->^^:2  ija  Vd  iSdi  i^j  vnxi.  In  that  case  we  should 
rd.  min>  for  y\s  in  v.".  The  least  emendation  for  v.^*  is  to  rd.  ''J3  Sai 
iSd. — 9.  riNUDH-p  min>i]  is  to  be  identified  with  nxjon-p  ninin,  i  Ch. 
97. — 10  f .  identical  with  i  Ch.  9'"  exc.  that  p  fails  before  ^n^i  and 
nnB'  =  nnty. — 11.  ijj]  (B^^^  ixdvavTi  (ij;),  T)Yo6tisvo?^. — 12.  .  . .  njna' 
O'ljci]  lacking  in  ^^^.  C&^  lacks  first  three  names  and  p  before  ishn. 
—13.  vnxi]  lacking  in  (&^^^. — idn  .  .  .  vnN-p]  lacking  in  (B^^\—14. 
TipDi]  to  end,  (61^^^  Y.(x\  Ixfoxoxo?  BaSn^X. — a-'Snjn-p]  ^^  uXhc,  tcjv  [x.e- 
y4Xo)v.— 15  f .  anSn  .  .  .  aptntyi]  lacking  in  (S^^x^ — njs^nn]  (gi-  e'pya  tou 
otxou  "Tou  6eou  toG  s^wtixou. — 17.  05^**^  has  only  xotl  MaOotvia  u'ihq  Maxii 
xal  'Q^-f)0  ulb?  Sotpiouic. — n^cnS  rtntn>]  (^^  'AaAip  Spxwv  toO  a"vou  xstl 
'Io68a<;  ttj?  xpoaeux'Sj?,  one  of  the  rare  cases  where  Torrey  admits  the 
value  of  this  text  (ES."").  In  x™-  we  find,  taking  in  a  little  of  the  con- 
text to  show  connection,  'Aai?  fipx^JYoi;  toO  atvou  toG  'louSi  ecq  xpo- 


NEHEMIAH    I2'-2g  275 

oeuxTjv.  To  get  sense  we  should  rd.  n'^n.-in,  used  in  a  technical  sense 
for  a  psalm;  for  ^^^^1  we  might  rd.  y^^^^\  teacher,  n^on  has  a  tech- 
nical sense  as  in  Ps.  72-"  and  in  psalm  titles  and  means  a  liturgical 
prayer.— 16.  tt'-ipn  ...  So]  lacking  in  ^^«A__23b  lacking  in  (B^^^. 
(6^  xal  StEiJievev  ev  xIqici  exl  toIi;  wSols  x.  t.  X.  This  is  a  dup.,  cor- 
rected from  MT.,  but  showing  originally  iny  for  njcx,  since  n™-  has 
oi^ixecvsv  Ixl  Tot?  tSSot?.  We  must  rd.  -ic>;m,  v.  s. — 24.  SNat^a'c]  C6«ax 
Bacn)!^a. — mirf  .  .  .  ij3d]  lacking  in  ^^-^'*. — t'S]  (6^  sxotxsvo:. — 25.  From 
>3,  last  syl.  of  i"3ixn,  to  end  of  v.  is  lacking  in  (5^'^**  (save  that  ^  has 
ap^o). — nnsn]  (gi-  Guyaxpaatv  auTfjg  =  nin:2. — 26.  (&^'^*<  has  only  xal  sv 
'Iijaou,  (S^  xal  £V  Houa  x.  t.  X.— 27.  (S'''^!<  has  only  xal  sv  BsTjpaa^es. — 28  f . 
lacking  in  (S'^^'*.— njon]  (^^  MasiT),  Maxva  x"-. — 30.  ::^-^y  nj;]  and  nprj? 
'ai]  lacking  in  <S«AN__^x3n]  (guAsL  j^  p.— ajn  n>j  t;]  lacking  in  05^*^. 
— 31.  r^>}!^]  to  end  of  v.  "  lacking  in  ^^^^. — 36.  . . ,  nipSnn]  ^^  [Lsglosq 
ev  Tw  'louSd:  xal  tw  Bevtayitv. 


NE.   12^-26.     A    LIST    OF    PRIESTS    AND    LEVITES    ARRANGED 
BY    PERIODS. 

This  list  was  inserted  here  prob.  as  a  sort  of  appendix  to  the  preced- 
ing lists.  It  carries  us  down  to  a  late  period,  certainly  to  the  Gk.  age. 
The  basis  of  the  chron.  system  is  the  succession  of  high  pr.,  v.  i"  '■, 
put  in  by  the  Chr.  as  a  guide,  and  covering  the  whole  Pers.  period. 
There  are  five  pails:  (i)  the  names  of  those 'belonging  to  the  time  of 
Jes.,  the  associate  of  Zer.,  vv.  i-^;  (2)  the  succession  of  high  pr.;  (3) 
those  of  the  period  of  Jojakim,  Jes.'s  successor,  vv.  i^-^';  (4)  Lev.  of 
the  time  of  Eliashib,  a  generation  later,  v.  ";  (5)  apparently  intended  to 
be  a  list  of  those  of  the  time  of  Johanan  called  here  the  son  (but  ace. 
to  v. '"  f-  the  grandson)  of  Eliashib,  vv.  "-".  It  appears,  therefore,  that 
the  passage  was  originally  designed  to  furnish  a  list  of  the  pr.  and  Lev. 
who  were  heads  of  their  guilds  during  the  whole  of  the  Pers.  period.  The 
passage  shows  the  hand  of  the  Chr.  throughout.  The  big  gaps  in  the 
best  MSS.  of  (S  show  that  the  list  was  developed  at  a  late  date,  and  yet 
it  was  never  completed,  unless  we  suppose  that  some  of  the  Chr.'s  sys- 
tematic work  has  been  lost.  As  in  c.  11  there  is  here  and  there  inter- 
spersed a  phrase  defining  the  functions  of  certain  Lev.  On  the  lists 
see  Mey.  Enl.^^^  f-  1'%  Sm.  Listen,^". 

1-9.  A  list  of  priests  and  Levites  who  came  up  with 
Zenibbabel  and  Jeshua.  The  passage  purports  to  be  parallel 
to  the  list  in  Ezr.  2''«-*'  and  Ne.  f^-'^\ 

1.  Jes.].  To  make  the  identification  certain  ^^  inserts  the  son  of 
Josedek.  After  this  we  should  expect  the  pr.  as  we  have  the  Lev.  in 
V.  •,  cf.  11*.    All  the  names  after  Shekaniah,  i.  e.,  out  of  the  total 


276  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

22,  are  lacking  in  the  chief  Gk.  texts. — 7.  These  were  the  heads  of  the 
pr.  and  their  brethren  in  the  days  of  Jes.].  Brethren  was  mechanically 
inserted  after  pr.,  apparently  for  no  other  reason  than  its  constant 
recurrence  in  the  lists  of  pr.  and  Lev.  It  has  a  technical  sense  in  these 
lists,  like  associates,  those  of  the  same  class.  The  list  does  not  pretend 
to  name  all  the  individual  pr.,  but  only  the  heads  of  clans. — 8.  The 
Lev.  in  two  groups;  first  six  names,  and  then  it  is  said  of  one  of  them: 
He  and  his  brethren  were  [appointed]  over  the  thanksgivings].  The  ante- 
cedent, therefore,  must  be  sg.  In  view  of  ii''  (of  which  8^  is  a  dup.), 
we  should  prob.  rd.:  and  the  Lev.;  Jes.,  Binimi,  Kadmiel,  Sherebiah, 
Jiidah,  Mattaniah;  and  Mattaniah  was  over  the  thanksgivings,  he  and 
his  brethren.  Instead  of  Jes.,  Binuni,  Kadmiel,  v.  -*  has  Jes.  the  son  of 
Kadmiel. — 9.  And  Bakbukiah  and  Unni  [and]  their  brethren  were  op- 
posite them  for  the  functions].  This  may  refer  to  antiphonal  singing, 
or  to  the  changes  of  orders  for  different  occasions.  It  is  an  elabora- 
tion of  the  vague  "second"  of  11",  whatever  that  may  mean. — Unni] 
=  Obadiah  in  v.  "  and  Abda  in  iii^. 

10  f.  gives  a  priestly  genealogy  from  Jeshua,  the  son  of 
Josedek,  to  Jaddua.  According  to  Jos.  {Ant.  xi,  8,  5),  Jaddua 
was  a  contemporary  of  Alexander  the  Great.  The  list  there- 
fore extends  through  two  centuries;  as  there  are  six  genera- 
tions, the  time  covered  corresponds  very  closely  to  that  date. 
Further  confirmation  comes  from  the  identification  of  Eliashib 
with  the  high  priest  of  Nehemiah's  time,  3^ 

12-21.  Priests  and  Levites  of  a  later  period. — 12.  And  in  the 

days  of  Jojakim],  the  father  or  predecessor  of  Eliashib,  and  therefore 
we  are  in  the  period  just  before  Neh.'s  advent. — Priests  the  heads  of 
guilds  were].  The  list  in  vv.  '-^  was  of  the  contemporaries  of  Zer.;  this 
list  gives  the  heads  of  those  clans  a  century  later.  The  scheme  is  to 
give  a  clan-name  and  then  the  contemporary  representative,  thus;  of 
the  guild  or  course  of  Seraiah,  Meraiah.  The  clan-names  are  those  of 
vv. '-'. — 14.  Meliki],  but  Malliik  in  v.  -. — Hattush  of  v.  -  fails  us  here. 
The  omission  may  be  accidental,  or,  as  d  lacks  the  name  in  v.  =,  it 
may  be  an  error  there. — Shebaniah]  =  Shckaniah,  v.'. — 15.  Harim]  = 
Rehiim,  v.  ^. — Mcrajoth]  =  Meremoth,  v.  ^ — 16.  Ginncthon]  =  Ginnetho, 
V.  *. — 17.  Minjamin]  =  Mijamin,  v.  ^  The  name  of  the  representative 
of  this  clan  has  fallen  out. — Moadjah]  =  Maadjah,  v.  ^. — 20.  Salli]  = 
Sallu,  V. '. 

22.  A  list  of  the  Levites  of  a  generation  succeeding,  i.  e,,  in  the 
days  of  Eliashib,  contemporary  with  Nehemiah. — All  three  names 
recur  in  the  genealogy  of  high  pr.,  v.  ",  being  the  last  three  of  that  list; 
for  Jonathan  and  Johanan  are  identical.    As  Eliashib  was  the  father 


NEHEMIAH   121-26  277 

of  Jojada,  we  might  render:  the  Lev.  in  the  days  of  Eliashib,  Jojada, 
Jonathan  and  Jaddiia  were  recorded  as  heads  of  guilds].  At  all  events, 
the  three  high  pr.  cannot  be  classed  as  Lev. — And  the  pr.  unto  the 
reign  of  Dar.  the  Pers.]  is  quite  unintelligible  here.  The  idea  seems  to 
be  that  a  certain  list  covered  the  pr.  known  as  far  down  the  period  as 
the  reign  of  Dar.,  cf.  v.  =3.  It  may  be  misplaced  from  vv. '-',  where  the 
date  would  be  accurate.  It  is  obviously  but  a  fragment.  Dar.  the  Pers. 
is  pecuUar,  the  only  case  of  the  gentilic  form,  and  suggests  a  fragment 
from  an  unfamiliar  hand. 

23-26.  Another  list  of  Levites  and  notes  of  their  duties. — 23. 
Here  we  find  the  unusual  sons  of  Levi  in  place  of  the  common  Lev., 
"perhaps  to  include  them  with  pr.,"  Berth. — Written  upon  the  hook 
of  the  deeds  of  the  days].  "The  deeds  of  the  days"  is  equiv.  to  an- 
nals or  chronicles;  it  is  a  technical  term  used  many  times,  though 
usually  with  some  further  definition,  as  the  annals  of  the  kings  of 
Israel  (or  Judah).  It  refers,  though,  to  a  historical  record,  not  to  a 
genealogy.  But  the  Chr.  wrote  history  on  the  theory  that  genealo- 
gies were  an  important  part,  and  this  may  pass  as  his  work.  In  7=, 
however,  the  correct  term,  "book  of  genealogy,"  occurs. — And  down 
to  the  days  of  Johanan  [or  Jonathan,  v.  "]  the  soft  of  Eliashib],  or  strictly 
the  grandson,  vv. '» '-,  cf.  Ezr.  10^;  "son"  is  not  employed  very  strictly 
in  these  records.  The  words  do  not  fit  their  present  connection, 
as  they  require  a  preceding  statement  of  an  earlier  date  than  that  of 
Jonathan.  Instead  of  the  inappropriate  "book  of  the  chronicles," 
there  may  have  originally  stood  "in  the  days  of  .  .  .  and  down  to," 
etc.  Or  V. "''  may  be  connected  with  v.  -^<^,  the  record  extending  from 
Eliashib  to  his  grandson.  The  idea  is  that  there  was  a  record  of  the 
Lev.  who  were  heads  of  guilds  down  to  the  time  of  Johanan,  that  is,  later 
than  Neh. — 24.  The  Lev.  are  divided  into  two  classes  by  their  offices. 
In  the  first  class  we  find  nearly  the  same  names  as  in  v. »,  Hashahiah, 
Sherebiah,  and  Jes.  the  son  of  Kadmiel. — And  their  brethren  in  front 
of  them],  IS  in  their  courses,  v.  on  v. '. — The  office  of  this  class  is  to  praise 
and  give  thanks]  cf.  v.  *  11". — David]  is  here  given  the  prophetic  title 
the  man  of  God,  to  show  that  his  authority  in  the  regulation  of  the 
temple  service  was  not  royal  but  prophetic.  How  different  is  the 
David  of  2  S.  7,  who  was  enjoined  from  building  the  temple  by  Nathan 
the  prophet! — Watch  next  to  watch]  ARV.,  but  see  v. '  for  their  watches 
or  functions.  H  renders  freely  and  they  in  turn  kept  watch  equally. 
It  seems  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  reference  here  is  not  to 
standing  watches  by  turn,  but  to  the  antiphonal  singing,  one  body  of 
singers  opposite  another  body. — 25.  The  second  class  of  Lev.  consists 
of  six  men,  the  first  three  of  whom — Mattaniah,  Bakbukiah,  and 
Obadiah  (  =  Abda  =  Unni) — are  named  in  vv. « '■  11",  and  the  last  two, 
Talmon  and  Akkub,  are  named  as  porters  in  ii>».  In  i  Ch.  9"  we  find 
also  Shallum,  corresponding  to  our  Meshullam. — As  our  text  stands  their 


278  EZFL\-NEHEMIAH 

duties  are  thus  defined:  walchmcn,  gatekeepers  [their]  office,  at  the  store' 
houses  of  the  gates].  Such  a  description  is  very  prob.  wrong.  The 
Vrss.  render  variously,  d  having  ivatchmen,  gatekeepers  of  the  watch 
when  I  gathered  the  gatekeepers.  11  has:  keepers  of  the  gates  and  of  the 
fore-courts  before  the  gates,  a  rendering  which  has  the  advantage  of  mak- 
ing sense.  All  we  can  say  positively  is  that  these  men  were  charged 
with  the  duty  prescribed  in  ^^  of  seeing  that  the  gates  were  watched  and 
opened  and  closed  at  the  proper  time.  This  fact,  as  well  as  the  "I"  of 
d,  suggests  a  fragment  of  N.  The  same  function  in  11"  is  prescribed 
for  the  gatekeepers.  The  confusion  is  surely  bewildering.  The  impli- 
cation is  that  the  gatekeepers  were  a  branch  of  the  Levitical  body. — 
26.  The  text  contains  two  dates,  one  that  of  Jojakim  the  predecessor 
of  Eliashib.  the  other  that  of  Neh.  and  Ezra.  But  the  theory  is  that 
Ezra  and  Neh.  were  contemporaries,  and  it  is  possibly  the  intention  of 
the  writer  to  name  three  men  assumed  to  be  of  the  same  age,  and  there- 
fore we  should  expect  Eliashib  instead  of  Jojakim.  One  Gk.  cod.  con- 
nects this  date  with  the  following  story  of  the  dedication  of  the  walls. 
It  is  suggestive  to  find  Neh.  preceding  Ezra,  contrary  to  the  Chr.'s 
arrangement  of  his  material.  Strictly  speaking,  we  might  interpret 
this  V.  as  mng.  that  the  lists  enumerated  cover  the  period  from  Jojakim 
to  Ezra,  a  period  of  considerable  length. 

2.  tyion]  lacking  in  (&^'^^. — i'VJ"]  d^  Irjaou  xoij  luasSsx. — nnsNJ  (&^ 
Ktapvxc,. — 3.  From  am  to  v.  ''^,  the  end  of  the  list,  there  is  a  blank 
in  (gBAN. — 4.  n;]  (gL  Aootia;. — 8.  n^jnc]  (6^  Ma'/avia. — MJ3]  <&^  xai 
ol  ut'ol  auToG  =  TiJ^i. — nnvT'^y]  d^^**  ItcI  twv  xstpwv,  (Si^  sxl  twv  e^o- 
[loXoY-QCTswv  =  nmnn-'?;?  as  in  v.  2'.  And  so  we  should  rd.  instead  of 
a.  X.,  which  is  a  form  hard  to  explain.  <&  shows  that  the  error  was  an 
old  one. — 9.  (S^^^  omits  all  but  last  word,  which  is  connected  with  v.  '. 
— After  an'^ns]  d^  inserts  dvsxpouovxo,  which  in  five  places  represents 
four  different  Heb.  words,  no  one  of  which  can  readily  be  inferred  here. — 
10.  yw]  d^  'Iigaou?  o  ToO  TucjsSe-/.. — 12.  vn]  d^'^'^'  aSeX^ol  auTou  = 
vnN,  d^  has  the  dup.  -^aav  01  il. — ^n^'jjn]  lacking  in  d^. — •■oi'^cS]  d  1^ 
MaXoux  =  li'^c,  as  v.  -.  (&^'^^  omits  all  the  rest  of  the  names  down  to 
the  end  of  v.  21. — 15.  nnn]  d^  Psouyi  =  zm-\,  as  v.  =. — 17.  After  a^s'j-"'] 
d^  has  Maaott.  Some  name  is  required,  d^  has  BevtaiAstv  ev  xai- 
pot?  T(p  (psXtjTst,  reading  0'^>'1C^. — 24.  n^a-^n]  d  A^ta  Affapta(<;)'^**^. — 
S^'Cip-ja]  (§i^^^  v.!x\  ol  uto!  Kaoyiti^X;  d^  xal  o'i  u'tol  airou,  KeS(j.ti^X;  con- 
sistently that  text  reads  01  dSsX^ot  auTou,  showing  vnx,  and  having 
Kadmiel  alone  as  antecedent. — 25.  idcd  .  . .  n>jn!:]  lacking  in  d^-^^. 
— nnc'S  onyia"]  (Si^  xuXwpol  (ftSXaxfjc,. — "tyn  ••eONa]  d  ev  xy  ouvayaYsiv  fis 
Tou<;  xuXwpoCx;.  We  should  rd.  D'->;;u'3,  as  in  11". — .  . .  idcd]  19  ctistodes 
portarutn  et  vestibulorum  ante  port  as. — 26.  d^"^^'  lacks  nVx  and  nnon. 
— Beforfe  T^ai]  d^  has  a  part  of  what  is  also  found  in  v. ",  giving  this 
as  the  date  of  the  dedication  of  the  walls. 


NEHEMIAH    I22'-«3  279 


NE.    12*^-^.      THE    DEDICATION    OF    THE    WALLS. 

The  subject  shows  that  we  must  go  back  to  7^,  for  the  dedication 
would  be  the  natural  sequence  to  the  completion  of  the  building.  It 
is  prob.  that  the  original  order  was  7'  12"-"  y*-^^  11' '-.  Editors  and 
compilers  have  done  much  more  damage,  however,  than  merely  to  dis- 
arrange the  chron.  connections;  for  in  this  part  the  confusion  is  prob. 
unparalleled  in  the  OT.  It  is  beyond  the  bounds  of  probability  that 
any  ingenuity  of  criticism  will  be  able  to  restore  the  original.  At  the 
basis  there  seems  to  be  a  mere  unintelligible  fragment  of  N.  which  has 
been  worked  over  and  over  until  the  passage  is  hopelessly  obscure. 
We  have  two  recensions  of  the  expanded  text,  of  which  the  Gk.  is  by 
far  the  simpler. 

But  the  main  course  of  the  narrative  may  be  followed.  The  Lev. 
were  brought  from  their  rural  abodes  to  lead  in  the  joyful  songs.  The 
people  were  drawn  up  in  two  companies,  each  with  its  leader,  and  with 
a  company  of  pr.  carrying  clarions.  One  company  started  from  the 
dung  gate  eastward,  traversing  the  wall  to  the  east  water  gate,  and 
halting  in  the  temple  area.  The  second  company  with  Neh.  at  its 
head  went  in  the  opposite  direction,  and  after  going  along  a  portion  of 
the  wall  halted  also  in  the  temple  area.  The  whole  body,  now  reunited, 
witnessed  the  offering  of  splendid  sacrifices  and  participated  in  the  loud 
rejoicings.  On  this  section  see  Kost.  Wied.*^  '■,  and  esp.  the  excellent 
article  by  Mitchell,  JBL.  1903,"-"  *f-,  in  which  he  has  attempted,  with 
the  aid  of  all  the  modern  light,  to  show  the  course  of  march  of  each 
company. 

Its  place  here  is  prob.  due  to  the  fact  that  in  its  present  form  it  is 
much  more  concerned  with  the  pr.  and  Lev.  than  with  the  walls.  We 
might  perhaps  give  it  as  a  title:  The  Great  Place  of  the  Priests  and  Levites 
in  the  Dedication  of  tite  Walls.  Nevertheless  there  seems  to  be  a  frag- 
ment of  N.  discernible  here  and  there,  though  so  worked  over  by  the 
Chr.  as  to  be  barely  distinguishable.  It  is  noteworthy  that  <^^^^  here 
generally  agree,  showing  a  single  prototype  and  that  their  version  is 
much  shorter  than  MT.  MT.  therefore  reveals  much  editing  and 
amplifying.  The  passage  begins  with  such  abruptness  that  we  may  as- 
sume that  some  introductory  words  have  been  lost. 

27.  And  at  the  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem],  a  phrase 
which  shows  that  we  are  not  dealing  with  N.  He  would  not  have 
named  the  city. — They  sought  the  Levites  from  all  their  places]. 
Here  we  have  an  exact  statement  of  fact.  In  Nehemiah's  time 
the  Levites  did  not  live  in  Jerusalem,  but  were  scattered  about 


28o  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  country. — To  make  a  dedication  and  rejoicing].  In  joyful 
singing  the  Levites  are  assumed  to  be  leaders,  cf.  v.  ^\ — And  with 
thanksgivings]  fits  in  very  poorly,  as  it  interrupts  the  connection. 
The  dedication  and  rejoicing  were  to  be  made  with  song  of  cym- 
bals and  of  lutes],  i.  e.,  songs  sung  to  the  accompaniment  of  cym- 
bals and  lutes.  An  editor  has  added  the  third  common  instru- 
ment, and  with  harps];  for  the  construction  differs  from  the 
preceding  and  the  word  fails  in  (i.  Harps  would  hardly  be  suit- 
able in  a  procession. — 28  f .  is  parallel  with  v.  ".  The  Levites 
were  gathered  from  their  places  to  sing  joyful  songs,  and  now 
the  sons  of  the  singers]  are  collected  from  the  same  places  and 
for  the  same  purpose.  "  Sons  of  the  singers"  means  those  skilled 
in  song. — From  the  plain*  around  Jerusalem  and  from  the  villages 
and  from  the  fields]  so  01,  to  which  in  MT.  we  find  additions  thus: 
from  the  villages  of  the  Netophathites  and  from  Beth-haggilgal  and 
from  the  fields  of  Geha  and  Azmaweth].  Netophah  is  about  fif- 
teen miles  south-west  of  Jerusalem,  and  was  in  later  days  the 
home  of  Levites.  Beth-haggilgal  is  a  mystery,  but  as  other 
names  have  a  noun  preceding,  this  may  mean,  from  the  Levite 
house  at  Gilgal,  a  name  given  to  several  localities,  any  one 
of  which  may  be  meant  here.  Geba  and  Azmaweth  are  north 
of  Jerusalem.  The  use  of  hamlets  and  fields  shows  that  the 
Levites  of  Nehemiah's  time  were  earning  their  living  from  the 
soil.  The  simpler  text  of  (i>  is  the  original,  a  conclusion  borne 
out  by  the  note  following:  for  the  singers  had  built  their  ham- 
lets about  Jerusalem].  The  Chronicler  was  overfond  of  loading 
down  his  narrative  with  such  comments. — 30.  In  preparation 
for  a  religious  oflSce  the  priests  and  Levites  purified  themselves], 
cf.  Ezr.  620.  'Yhi's,  would  be  necessary  for  the  Levites  who  had 
been  engaged  in  agriculture;  perhaps  also  for  the  priests,  be- 
cause they  had  been  labouring  on  the  walls.  The  singers  are 
not  mentioned,  because  they  are  the  same  as  the  Levites. 
After  purifying  themselves,  they  in  turn  purified  the  people  and 
the  gates  and  the  wall].  (S  saw  the  incongruity  and  rendered,  as 
is  perfectly  possible  by  change  of  pointing,  "gatekeepers"  for 

*  G.  A.  Smith  holds  that  plain  or  circuit  here  has  a  poh'tical  rather  than  a  geographical 
sense  Uer.  i,'"). 


NEPIEMIAH    I22^-«  28 1 

"gates,"  but  we  still  have  ''wall,"  and  "gatekeepers"  is  not  ap- 
propriate here.  How  this  purifying  was  accomplished  we  are 
not  informed;  Sieg.  says  by  a  sacrifice,  and  by  sprinkling  with 
the  blood  of  the  victim. — 31.  And  I  had  the  princes  of  Judah  go 
upon  the  wall;  and  I  stationed  two  great  processions  and  they  were 
proceeding  to  the  right  at  the  dung  gate].  The  first  person  shows 
that  we  have  a  trace  of  N.  again.  There  is  a  general  descrip- 
tion of  the  whole  company  which  took  part  in  the  dedication 
upon  the  wall,  consisting  of  the  princes  and  the  processions  of 
singers  or  of  the  people  generally.  Mitchell,  however,  proposes 
"and  the  one  went"  for  "and  they  were  proceeding"  (JBL. 
1903,'^),  making  the  passage  refer  to  one  of  the  two  companies. 
The  place  where  they  ascended  the  wall  was  at  the  dung  gate 
in  the  Tyropoeon  valley  on  the  south.  (But  cf.  note  on  v.  ^2.) — 
32.  And  there  went  after  them  Hoshaiah  and  half  of  the  princes  of 
Judah],  but  corresponding  to  this  in  v.  ^*  we  have  half  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  should  so  read  here.  It  is  plain  that  as  we  have  half 
of  the  parade  here,  and  find  the  other  half  with  Nehemiah, 
V.  *",  and  as  we  have  the  second  procession,  v.  ^^,  we  are  dealing 
now  with  the  first  procession  only.  Further,  this  division  goes 
to  the  right,  while  the  second  goes  to  the  left,  v.  ^®.  Possibly  the 
clauses  are  transposed  in  v.  ^^  and  that  we  should  read:  and  I 
stationed  two  great  divisions  upon  the  wall;  one  was  at  the  dung 
gate;  and  I  caused  the  princes  of  Judah  [the  first  division]  to  go  to 
the  right. — 33  f.  Some  names  are  inserted  here  absolutely  without 
connection.  Most  of  them  we  can  identify  with  Levites.  Judah 
and  Benjamin  as  they  stand  in  the  list  are  persons,  not  tribes, 
and  yet  it  is  tempting  to  think  that  they  are  really  used  here  to 
cover  the  whole  community. — 35  f.  A-nd  some  of  the  sons  of  the 
priests  with  clarions],  cf.  "sons  of  the  singers,"  v.  ^s.  The  clarion 
was  a  priestly  instrument.  It  was  not  intended  for  tunes  but 
for  signals,  like  our  bugle.  The  priests  named  are  Zechariah, 
whose  ancestry  is  traced  to  Asaph  the  singer,  and  (according  to 
05)  Shemaiah  and  Azarel.  The  other  names  are  partly  corrupt 
forms  not  found  elswehere. — With  the  singing  instruments  of 
David  the  man  of  God],  cf.  v.  "^^  and  Am.  6^  This  can  hardly  be 
original ;  for  the  priests  had  clarions  and  the  Levites  had  the  ac- 


282  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

companying  instruments,  v.  2', — And  Ezra  the  scribe  was  before 
them].  The  Chronicler  is  bound  to  magnify  his  favourite  and 
so  he  does  not  hesitate  here  to  make  him  the  leader  of  the  band. 

37.  The  course  of  this  procession  is  now  described:  unto  the 
fountain  gate],  "by"  of  RV.,  instead  of  "unto,"  or  literally 
"upon,"  is  a  doubtful  rendering  forced  by  the  difficulty  of  the 
situation:  and  straight  before  them],  RV.,  rather  and  over  against 
them,  but  it  is  impossible  to  say  over  against  what. — They  went 
up  by  the  stairs  of  the  city  of  David]  v.  3^^. — It  is  generally  as- 
sumed that  the  procession  leaves  the  wall  and  goes  straight 
north,  Ryle,  Sieg.  But  from  the  qualifying  clause  by  the  ascent 
of  the  wall  above  the  house  of  David],  it  would  appear  that  the 
company  followed  the  wall.  Our  ignorance  of  the  ancient 
topography  makes  it  impossible  to  determine  the  exact  force 
of  the  words. — And  to  the  water  gate  on  the  east]  of  the  temple, 
cf.  3^®.  This  was  the  end  of  the  journey  of  the  first  company. 
The  march  took  them  around  something  like  one-fourth  of  the 
circuit  of  the  walls,  from  the  dung  gate  to  the  water  gate. — 

38.  And  the  second  procession  was  going  to  the  left],  i.  e.,  to  the 
west:  to  meet  them  there  in  one  Greek  text. — And  I  was  following 
it;  and  half  the  people].  Nehemiah  himself  was  in  the  rear  of 
this  procession,  as  Hoshaiah  followed  the  other,  v.  ^■-;  the  Chron- 
icler put  Ezra  with  the  former,  a  high  dignitary  being  with 
each  company. — Upon  the  wall  above  the  toiver  of  the  ovens  as  far 
as  the  broad  ivall]  is  the  description  of  the  course  followed  by  the 
second  division. — 39.  Here  we  find  the  course  of  the  march  re- 
sumed: beyond  the  gate  of  Ephraim  atid  past  the  old  gate*  and  tlte 
fish  gate  and  the  tower  of  Hananel  and  the  tower  of  Hammeah  and 
to  the  sheep  gate  and  they  stopped  at  the  gate  of  the  guard].  This 
procession  went  out  by  the  gate  of  Ephraim  and  marched  around 
the  walls  to  the  sheep  gate,  and  then  keeping  -within  the  walls 
finished  the  circuit  to  the  gate  of  the  guard,  which  was  close 
by  the  temple.  There  must  have  been  bad  going  outside  of 
the  walls  for  the  latter  part  of  the  march,  or  else  the  company 
came  inside  because  it  had  nearly  reached  the  meeting-place 
at  the  temple  area.    The  distance  traversed  was  thus  about 

*  Strictly  "  gate  of  the  old  Ipool],"  Mitchell,  JBL.  i903,"2  «•. 


NEHEMIAH    I2«"'^  283 

the  same  as  that  of  the  first  procession. — 40.  Afid  both  proces- 
sions came  to  a  hall  at  the  house  of  God].  One  had  come  into  the 
city  at  the  water  gate,  the  other  at  the  sheep  gate,  both  places 
in  the  temple  precincts.  It  is  assumed  that  they  marched  on 
until  they  met  and  stopped  at  the  temple.  The  story  then  is 
resumed  in  v.  ^^,  for  vv.  ^^  '•  contain  material  inappropriate  to 
this  place. — And  I  and  half  the  nobles  with  me]  is  doubtless  a 
genuine  fragment  of  N.,  but  the  predicate  is  gone  beyond  re- 
covery, perhaps  buried  in  the  list  of  priestly  names.  It  may  be 
a  dupHcate  of  "I  and  half  of  the  people,"  v.  ^*. — 41.  This  con- 
tains a  list  of  seven  priests  who  had  trumpets.  It  is  perhaps  in- 
tended to  imply  that  this  is  the  body  of  priests  in  the  second 
company  corresponding  to  those  assigned  to  the  first  company, 
V.  ^^,  and  so  the  Chronicler  has  put  his  material  in  at  a  very 
bad  place,  for  here  we  have  done  with  the  second  procession 
and  are  dealing  with  the  whole  body  at  rest  before  the  temple. 
— 42.  A  further  list  of  eight  priests  is  given,  but  with  no  in- 
timation of  their  office. — And  the  singers  chanted  aloud]  seems 
to  be  authentic,  as  this  singing  would  naturally  begin  as  the 
two  processions  halted  before  the  temple. — The  following  and 
Izrahiah  was  the  overseer]  is  certainly  corrupt  or  a  bald  inter- 
polation by  the  Chronicler.  CH  has  and  the  singers  were  heard 
and  paid  attention. — 43.  The  conclusion  of  the  dedicatory  exer- 
cises consisted  of  great  sacrifices,  for  which  purpose  the  pro- 
cessions had  halted  at  the  temple,  and  rejoicing  on  the  part  of 
the  whole  people,  including  women  and  children,  who  had  nat- 
urally gathered  to  watch  the  great  proceedings. — The  rejoicing 
of  Jerusalem  was  heard  afar  of],  i.  e.,  the  joyful  shouting  was 
loud  and  participated  in  by  many  people,  cf.  Ezr.  3". 

44-47.  Provision  to  secure  the  collection  of  the  priestly 
revenues.  The  connection  with  the  dedication  of  the  walls 
is  purely  artificial  "On  that  day"  (cf.  13O  is  about  as  vague 
as  "once  upon  a  time."  The  passage  by  subject  matter  is  con- 
nected with  lo-*-^^,  and  with  some  parts  of  c.  13.  It  is  quite  im- 
possible to  assign  any  definite  date.  It  appears  to  be  due  to  the 
Chronicler  or  to  some  other  whose  supreme  interest  was  the  cult. 


284  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

44.  Men  were  appointed  over  the  storerooms],  the  rooms  in 
which  the  sacrificial  supplies  and  the  dues  of  the  temple  officers 
were  kept.  It  was  the  business  of  these  men,  not  to  guard  the 
stuff  collected,  but  rather  to  see  that  a  good  amount  was  kept 
on  hand. — For  the  supplies],  in  apposition  to  which,  describing 
what  these  supplies  were,  we  read:  for  the  heave-offerings,  for 
the  first-fruits  and  for  the  tithes],  the  chief  offerings  that  are  made 
by  an  agricultural  people. — To  gather  into  them],  i.  e.,  the  store- 
rooms.— For  the  fields  of  the  cities]  makes  poor  sense.  From  the 
fields,  as  we  find  in  ^^,  would  do  in  itself,  but  why  fields  of  the 
cities?  d^,  by  a  difference  of  a  single  letter,  gives  for  the  chiefs 
of  the  cities,  a  better  reading,  as  the  meaning  is  that  general  offi- 
cers were  delegated  to  make  collections  for  the  whole  country 
instead  of  intrusting  the  task  to  the  local  officials. — The  legal 
portions]  or  apportionments ;  the  amount  to  be  gathered  was  not 
left  to  the  discretion  or  the  greed  of  the  temple  officers,  but 
was  determined  strictly  by  law.  The  collections  described  here 
are  exclusively  for  the  support  of  the  priests  and  Levites.  It 
was  possible  now  to  make  such  collections,  for  Judah  rejoiced 
in  the  priests  and  Levites  who  served]  literally,  stood,  i.  e.,  cared 
for  the  interests  of  the  whole  people  in  the  temple  services. — 
45.  As  this  verse  stands,  sense  cannot  be  extracted  from  it  save 
by  violence.  The  subject  of  kept  cannot  be  the  "collectors"  of 
V.  ^^,  for  we  are  finished  with  them;  nor  "  the  priests  and  Levites," 
for  they  are  objects  in  this  passage,  not  subjects.  There  is  only 
one  other  choice:  read  therefore  and  the  singers  and  the  gate- 
keepers performed  the  offices  of  their  God  and  the  office  of  purifica- 
tion according  to  the  command  of  David  and  of  Solomon  his  son], 
"Purification"  is  more  than  doubtful;  possibly  we  should  sub- 
stitute the  law,  an  emendation  requiring  but  a  slight  change 
in  the  original. — 46.  The  Chronicler  persists  in  attributing  the 
temple  institutions  to  David  and  Solomon.  For  in  the  days 
of  David  and  of  Asaph  of  old].  We  should  expect  Solomon  in 
place  of  Asaph,  as  v.  ^^. — There  were  chiefs  of  the  singers],  or, 
as  Sulzberger  renders:  "a  guild  of  singers"  (Am-ha-aretz,*^), 
Asaph  himself  being  the  great  chief,  at  least  according  to  the 
Chronicler.    The  text  should  run:  for  in  the  days  of  David,  Asaph 


NEHEMIAH    I2«-«  285 

was  of  old  the  chief  of  the  singers,  cf.  i  Ch.  6^'-  ^'■'.  We  know  noth- 
ing of  Asaph  from  the  authentic  history  of  David's  time. — And 
a  song  of  praise  arid  thanksgiving  to  God]  is  certainly  disjointed. 
The  meaning  is  apparently  that  temple  songs  as  well  as  singers 
go  back  to  the  time  of  David.  B  forces  a  connection,  leaders 
of  songs  were  appointed  over  the  songs,  etc. — 47.  In  the  days  of 
Zerubbabel  and  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah],  unconscious  testimony 
to  the  fact  that  in  this  period  there  were  but  two  real  civil 
leaders  known.  Jeshua  and  Ezra  evidently  had  no  place  in 
the  government. — All  Israel  paid  the  portions  of  the  singers  and 
of  the  porters,  the  obligation  of  a  day  on  its  day];  the  support 
of  these  officials  is  here  separated  from  that  of  the  priests  and 
Levites,  and  is  described  as  if  the  payments  were  made  volun- 
tarily without  the  intermediaries  named  in  v.  ^. — From  the  fol- 
lowing we  get  a  different  story  from  that  told  in  v.  ^^ :  and  they 
set  apart  for  the  Levites  anA  the  Levites  set  apart  for  the  sons  of 
Aaron].  From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  singers  and  porters 
received  support  from  the  people,  and  they  gave  a  part  of  their 
supplies  to  the  Levites  and  the  latter  in  turn  bestowed  a  part  on 
the  priests.  To  say  nothing  of  the  contradiction,  this  method 
of  supporting  the  men  higher  up  is  extremely  improbable. 

27.  nmn^j  05  ev  GwXaOa'^'^*^',  a  transliteration,  though  there  is  a  con- 
fusion of  letters  in  ^;  ^  adds  sv  s^otAoXoyfjaet,  showing  a  dup.  ^  has 
xal  dyaXXtdaet  =  njjn^i,  B  in  actione  graliarum. — "T'tt']  CS  wSal?  =  an^^^'. 
— nnj32i]  lacking  in  (S^^^^. — 28.  amiT'cn  ijd]  C5^  ot  utol  Aeut. — TiiJDj] 
lacking  in  CS«an__29.  ^^^i7\  nom]  lacking  in  <S*^an  ((|L  |^  BaceyaX), 
so  niDiyi  yaj. — ni30D]  (S^^AN  |y_ — 30.  Dnj;a'n]  OJban  ^^^^  •jcuXwpoui;. — 
31.  rhyi>.-\]  (&  avrjvsYxav;  v.  i-  lacking  in  (5ban. — naSnni]  (S^  xotl  St^XOov, 
H  et  ierunt  preceded  by  the  plus  laudantium.  Rd.  DDSmni  ptc.  as  in 
V.  38.  Or  with  Mitchell,  JBL.  1903,",  noSn  nnxni  for  na'^nni. — 33. 
nnry]  (g^x  Zaxap'«<;  =  'T'l^f- — 34.  pD^j^]  (6^  Mia[jL£tv  =  pD'-D,  cf.  v.  ". 
— n^j';:ts>]  ®bn  ^^pat-a.—Z^.  -T'-^  .  •  •  -hhr:]  (&^'^'^  ahzlv  sv  ihlalq,  prob. 
reading  on^S'  "'i^S'l'P-  ^^  has  all  the  names  and  then  tou  at'vetv  ev 
oxeueat  xal  mcolIc,,  showing  a  dup. — 37.  pyri]  CgBAvS  .^qq  afveiv.  This 
may  be  a  transliteration  which  has  then  crept  back  to  the  preceding  v. 
— nirc]  to  onflx,  v.  ",  lacking  in  (6^'^^'. — 38.  SxidS]  C&^  auvavTwaot  auTois, 
i.  e.,  anNnpS.  Many  rd.  Snic-^'S,  corresponding  to  T"'i3iS,  v.  =■,  and  this 
is  right. — 39.  "t^-n  lyc  Syi]  lacking  in  (&^^^,  so  nxcn  Sum  and  nrj? 
to  end  of  v.— 40-42 »  lacking  in  (&^^^.—i2.  n^mr^i]  lacking  in  (S^an, 


286  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

— Tpsn]  ®BAN  ^gj'j  eTCoxexTjastv  =  npci. — 44.  .-^iDnnS]  lacking  in  C5. — 
nirS]  (S  apxouatv  =  na'.  (g^  has  a  doublet,  dtxb  twv  (iYPtov  x.  t.  irdXswv 
tote;  i'pxouat  -u.  x6Xeti>v. — minn]  lacking  in  ^^'^^',  B  principes  civUatis  in 
decor egraliar urn  actlonis. — 46.  IDni],  i  lacking  in  (&. — mini . . .  T'lf]  (S^as 
u[jLvov  7.al  atvefftv,  ^  usjlvo;  x.  s^oixoXdy'Qot;  x.  aVvsatc;. — 47.  n'>?3nj  '>ci3i] 
lacking  in  (S^^. 


NE.   13.     NEHEMIAH  S    SECOND    ADMINISTRATION. 

This  c.  deals  wholly  with  the  reforms  effected  by  Neh.  during  his 
second  administration.  After  twelve  years  had  been  spent  in  Jerus., 
his  leave  having  expired,  he  returned  to  Pers.  We  have  no  information 
as  to  the  time  of  his  coming  back  to  Jerus.,  but  since  Eliashib  was  still 
high  pr.,  though  an  old  man  (v.  note  on  v.  -»),  and  To.  the  Ammonite 
was  still  a  troublesome  character,  the  interval  between  the  two  admin- 
istrations could  not  have  been  long  {v.  Intr.  §  "  "')• 

The  reforms  remind  us  of  the  matter  in  c.  5,  though  a  number  of 
evils  are  dealt  with  here  as  against  a  single  one  in  c.  5;  but  the  descrip- 
tion of  each  is  characteristically  brief.  The  affairs  receiving  atten- 
tion were:  (i)  To.'s  residence  in  a  chamber  of  the  temple,  vv. »-'; 
(2)  the  securing  of  the  tithes  to  the  Lev.  so  that  they  could  give  their 
services  to  the  temple,  vv. '"-"';  (3)  the  prevention  of  traffic  on  the  Sab- 
bath, w.  1^-";  (4)  the  abolition  of  marriages  with  foreign  women, 
vv.  *'-";  and  (5)  the  banishment  of  a  pr.,  vv.  ^s-si.  Clearly  all  is  from 
N.  save  vv.  >-5-  ".  20 1. 29b-3ia_  jn  regard  to  vv.  "-^  it  is  hard  to  reach  a 
definite  conclusion.  The  material  is  practically  all  drawn  from  vv. «-' 
and  from  Dt.  The  passage  was  prob.  composed  by  the  Chr.  to  con- 
nect the  work  of  Neh.  with  Ezra's  reading  of  the  law.  W.  R.  Smith 
suspected  that  vv.  ^-^  originally  stood  after  Ezr.  io»  {OTJCS-''),  but 
Mitchell  rightly  rejects  this  (JBL.  1903,").  In  this  connection  the 
latter  writer  sets  forth  convincing  proof  of  the  place  of  13*  ^-  in  N. 
Obviously  the  section  vv.  ^-^'  is  incomplete,  and  the  conclusion  is  plain 
that  the  Chr.  preserved  but  a  small  section  of  the  record  of  the  second 
administration,  selecting  only  those  parts  which  dealt  with  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  law. 

1-5.  Tobiah  is  installed  in  one  of  the  chambers  of  the 
temple. 

The  law  is  found  that  an  Ammonite  and  a  Moabite  are  excluded  from 
the  congregation,  whereupon  all  of  alien  blood  are  excommunicated. 
Eliashib,  however,  being  overseer  of  the  temple  chambers,  had  fitted 
up  a  sumptuous  room  for  his  friend  To.  These  things  took  place  while 
Neh.  was  away  in  Pers. 


NEHEMIAH    1 3  287 

1.  On  that  day  it  was  read  [or  wc  read]  in  the  book  of  Moses]. 
This  reminds  us  of  the  public  reading  of  the  law  as  described  in 
c.  8.  But  the  story  is  introduced  here  to  connect  the  incident 
with  the  admission  of  Tobiah  to  the  temple  and  his  subsequent 
expulsion  by  Nehemiah. 

The  law  in  Dt.  23"  contains  a  dup.:  "An  Ammonite  and  a  Moabite 
shall  not  come  into  the  congregation  of  Yahweh  [even  to  the  tenth 
generation;  there  shall  not  come  in  of  them  to  the  congregation  of 
Yahweh]  forever."  The  part  in  braciiets  is  omitted  in  our  text.  Per- 
haps it  is  a  later  addition  in  Dt.,  v.  Dr.  As  provision  was  made  that 
Edomites  might  be  received  in  the  third  generation  (Dt.  23'),  the  ex- 
clusion to  the  tenth,  ace.  to  a  later  writer,  would  be  a  sufficient  penalty 
for  the  other  peoples. 

2.  The  cause  of  the  exclusion  was  not  hostility  to  the  foreigners 
as  such,  but  the  failure  of  these  two  races  to  supply  the  needs  of 
Israel  at  the  time  of  their  invasion  of  the  east- Jordan  country. 
— And  he  hired],  the  change  to  the  singular  follows  text  of  Dt.* 
and  may  be  due  to  the  unconscious  transition  to  Balak  as  sub- 
ject. Our  text  omits  the  details  about  Balaam  as  given  in  Dt., 
because  they  are  not  germane  here.  Vv.^f-  are  a  reproduction 
of  Dt.  23''-^  (Eng.^-^),  though  somewhat  abbreviated.  For  the 
whole  story  see  Nu.  22-24. — Turned  the  curse  into  a  blessing]. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  of  Balaam's  oracles  were  blessings.  He 
tried,  however,  to  earn  Balak's  tendered  prize  by  pronouncing 
a  blighting  curse  on  Israel.  But  Balaam  was  a  true  prophet 
of  Yahweh  and  could  only  utter  in  the  ecstatic  state  what 
Yahweh  put  into  his  mouth  (Nu.  22^*-  ^*  24").  What  Balaam 
intended  to  be  a  curse  proved  to  be  a  benediction. — 3.  When 
the  people  heard  the  law,  as  usual  they  proceeded  to  put  it 
into  execution;  therefore  they  excommunicated  from  Israel  every 
one  of  alieti  blood].  The  meaning  is  not  that  the  foreigners  were 
banished  from  the  land,  but  merely  that  they  were  denied  the 
privileges  of  the  temple.  It  is  evident  that  a  liberal  construc- 
tion was  put  upon  the  law.  Dt.  refers  to  Ammonites  and  Mo- 
abites,  but  not  to  any  other  peoples  whatsoever.    The  leaders 

•  ARV.  has  rendered  erroneously  "  they  hired." 


288  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

here  make  the  law  apply  to  all  foreigners,  no  matter  of  what 
nationality.  It  is  plain  that  if  this  event  is  historical,  the  work 
of  Ezra  must  have  followed,  for  the  condition  described  here 
could  not  have  existed  after  his  complete  separation  of  the  Jews 
from  foreigners. — 4.  Now  before  this],  earlier  than  the  excom- 
munication of  the  foreigners,  Eliashib  the  priest  had  been  ap- 
pointed in  charge  oj  the  chambers  of  the  house  of  our  God].  Eliashib 
was  high  priest  and  is  named  often  in  these  books. — And  he  was 
near  to  Tobiah].  This  is  Tobiah  the  Ammonite  slave  who  was 
one  of  Nehemiah's  chief  enemies,  2^°.  "Near"  is  usually  in- 
terpreted as  referring  to  blood  relationship,  BDB.  Ges.^,  Ryle. 
There  is  no  evidence  of  such  a  connection,  and  the  meaning  may 
well  be  that  the  relationship  was  purely  one  of  friendship,  or 
that  Eliashib  had  attempted  to  placate  an  enemy  of  the  people. 
According  to  6^*  he  was  related  by  marriage  to  Shekaniah  and  to 
Meshullam.  If  he  had  also  such  a  close  connection  with  the 
high  priest,  the  fact  would  not  have  been  overlooked  there. 
Moreover,  Sanballat  was  related  to  Eliashib,  v.  ^s.  It  is  not 
likely  that  Tobiah  was  also. — 5.  And  he  assigned  to  him  a  great 
chamber],  Eliashib,  who  was  overseer,  designated  one  of  the 
finest  chambers  to  Tobiah,  and  the  latter  evidently  used  it  as 
a  place  of  residence,  v.  ^.  During  Nehemiah's  rule  he  kept  up 
a  correspondence  with  leaders  in  Jerusalem,  but  could  not  get 
into  the  city.  Now  that  the  governor  was  away,  he  not  only 
entered  the  city,  but  actually  found  an  abode  in  the  temple. 
The  desecration  was  the  more  pronounced  as  this  was  the  very 
room  which  had  been  set  apart  for  the  offerings  of  the  people, 
both  those  used  for  sacrifice  and  those  for  the  support  of  the 
four  groups  of  temple  officers. — The  description  of  the  offerings 
is  quite  different  from  that  in  c.  12,  and  shows  another  hand, 
influenced  a  good  deal  by  Dt. — The  commandment]  makes  poor 
sense  and  lacks  support  in  the  Vrss.  Retained  we  should 
understand  it  to  mean  that  the  tithe  was  by  the  command  of 
the  law  given  to  the  Levites  et  al.  But  it  is  better  to  follov/ 
the  Latin  and  render  by  a  slight  emendation  "portions."  The 
verse  shows  amplification  by  a  later  hand.  Comparing  v.  * 
we  note  that  this  room  was  used  for  the  sacred  vessels  and  for 


NEHEMIAH    1 3  289 

two  kinds  of  offerings,  vegetable  and  incense.  But  at  a  later 
period  other  things  were  kept  in  this  room,  and  an  editor  adds 
a  list  to  bring  the  story  down  to  date. 

1.  Nipj]  may  be  Niph.  or  first  p.  pi.  Qal.  As  we  have  ijinSx  in  vv.  ^  *, 
this  passage  may  be  one  of  those  in  first  p.  pi.,  though  v.'  is  against 
this  conclusion.  After  idd]  (&^  adds  votxou.  From  xu''  nS  to  end  of  v.'' 
consists  of  extracts  of  Dt.  23^-%  giving  the  substance  of  the  law. — 
cnS^n]  Dt.  nini,  showing  plainly  the  Elohistic  bias  of  our  author. — 
2.  •'o]  Dt.  "^U'X  nai-Sy. — Snib"  ija-ns]  Dt.  dddh. — -oa'ii]  Dt.  idb'  ntrxi; 
d  reads  pi.  eixta6a)aotvTo,  so  B.— vSy]  Dt.  T''?!".— iSSpS]  Dt.lSSpS.— irni^N] 
Dt.  n*?  T'riSvX  nin\ — nSSpn]  (&^  xa-rapav  auTou. — 3.  3iy]  is  a  rare  word, 
but  the  mng.  mixture  is  well  established.  The  word  naturally  means  a 
people  not  of  pure  blood,  though  it  may  sometimes  be  applied  to  a  mass 
of  people  made  up  of  various  races.  In  this  passage  both  senses  may 
apply.  There  may  have  been  some  foreigners  of  different  races,  but 
certainly  there  were  many  of  mixed  blood. — SNityiD]  (&  ev  I. — 4.  ijaS 
ntc]  means  before  a  particular  event,  while  a^js'?  in  v.  ^  is  a  general 
word,  "formerly." — tmj]  (S  oExwv,  II  fuerat  prcBpositus.  (&  has  missed 
the  idea,  but  H  has  rendered  correctly.  The  sense  "appoint"  is  found 
in  I  S.  12"  I  Ch.  12',  V.  BDB. — r\yv^]  must  be  pointed  as  a  pi.  to  make 
the  sense  required. — 5.  nixc]  d^  d%u[jLa  =  msr,  unleavened  cakes,  IS 
partes  =  niijD,  as  12",  which  gives  the  best  sense. — nonn]  (&  dxapxaf, 
H  primitias,  which  represents  also  nis'xi,  as  in  12". 

6-9.  Tobiah's  belongings  are  ejected  from  the  temple. 

After  an  absence  of  uncertain  duration  Neh.  returns  to  Jerus.,  and 
finding  To.  residing  in  the  temple  chamber,  he  ejects  his  furnishings, 
orders  the  room  cleansed,  and  puts  back  the  vessels  and  offerings  for 
which  the  room  had  formerly  been  used.  We  are  certainly  dealing  with 
N.  again.  The  intr.,  in  all  this,  and  the  contents  show  a  connection 
with  the  preceding.    Yet  vv.  '-^  are  not  from  N. 

6.  In  all  this]  refers  only  to  the  events  described  in  w.  ^-^ 
not  to  the  long  story  of  Ezra's  promulgation  of  the  law. — • 
Thirty-second  year]  as  5*",  indicating  the  end  of  the  first  adminis- 
tration.— King  of  Babylon]  is  hardly  original.  Nehemiah  refers 
to  Artaxer.xes  merely  as  "the  king"  (2^,  the  natural  use  for 
a  contemporary.  "Babylon"  is  from  a  later  hand. — The  last 
clause  of  the  verse  is  usually  connected  with  what  follows,  thus: 
and  at  the  end  of  a  time  I  [again]  asked  leave  [of  absence]  from  the 


290  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

king  and  came  to  Jerusalem.  But  in  a  Greek  text  preserved  only 
in  a  duplicate  rendering  {v.  i.)  we  find  a  better  sense.  The 
clause  should  be  closely  connected  with  what  precedes,  for  our 
verse  division  is  here  right,  thus:  /  came  in  to  the  king  even  at  the 
end  of  the  period  for  which  I  had  asked  leave  from  the  king.  The 
point  that  Nehemiah  makes  is  that  he  had  gone  back  because 
the  period  for  which  he  had  been  appointed  governor  had  ex- 
pired. He  was  not  driven  from  Jerusalem  by  his  foes,  nor  did 
he  break  faith  with  the  king.  The  latter  point  was  important 
in  view  of  the  charges  of  rebellion  that  had  been  made  against 
him.  It  must  be  recalled  that  Artaxerxes  exacted  a  limit  of 
time  from  Nehemiah  before  consenting  to  his  departure  (2^), 
and  Nehemiah  takes  pains  to  say  that  he  returned  at  the  time 
agreed  upon.  The  words  "at  the  end  of  days"  are  sufficiently 
definite  in  this  connection,  as  they  refer  to  the  term  described 
earlier  in  the  verse,  /.  e.,  the  end  of  days  means  the  3 2d  year 
of  Artaxerxes,  the  end  of  the  leave  of  absence. — 7.  And  I  came 
to  Jerusalem].  This  is  abrupt,  and  one  might  wonder  whether 
the  above  interpretation  does  not  leave  something  wanting 
here.  But  we  note  that  the  clause  in  v.  ®  does  not  make  a 
very  happy  introduction  to  the  second  administration;  and 
while  Nehemiah  was  concerned  to  explain  his  absence  for  a 
period,  he  is  at  no  pains  to  explain  how  he  had  come  to  return. 
In  view  of  the  full  report  of  c.  if.,  perhaps  he  thought  it  would 
be  assumed  that  a  second  furlough  would  easily  be  obtained. 
Probably  Nehemiah  was  led  to  return  because  rumours  of  what 
he  found  at  Jerusalem  had  already  reached  him  in  Persia. — 
The  words  are  closely  connected  wdth  what  follows:  and  un- 
derstood the  evil]  of  EV^.  is  not  happy;  observed  is  better.  The 
evil  from  the  narrow  Jewish  point  of  view  would  consist  in  the 
profanation  of  the  temple  because  Tobiah  was  an  Ammonite. 
Nehemiah  may  have  made  use  of  this  sentiment  in  view  of  the 
purifying  which  followed  (v.  ^);  but  one  may  wonder  whether 
Nehemiah  was  not  largely  moved  by  his  remembrance  of  Tobi- 
ah's  striving  to  thwart  him  in  his  efforts  to  rebuild  the  wall. — ■ 
The  room  in  which  Tobiah  had  taken  abode  is  further  described 
as  in  the  courts  of  the  house  of  God].    The  "courts"  were  strictly 


NEHEMIAII    13  291 

the  open  spaces  in  the  temple  area,  and  doubtless  the  room 
opened  upon  these  courts. — 8.  Nehemiah  acted  with  his  cus- 
tomary promptness  and  decision;  every  article  in  the  sumptu- 
ous chamber  was  thrown  out.  The  word  implies  more  than 
"set  outside";  "thrown  out"  is  none  too  strong.  As  there  is 
no  mention  of  Tobiah  himself,  the  ejecting  was  probably  done 
in  his  absence.  With  Nehemiah  on  the  ground  Tobiah  would 
very  likely  prefer  to  live  elsewhere  for  a  time. — House  of  Tobiah] 
implies  that  he  had  set  up  a  regular  housekeeping  establishment 
and  that  his  family  lived  with  him,  thus  explaining  the  large 
room  assigned  him,  v.  •'. — 9.  And  I  spoke],  equivalent  to  com- 
manded; and  they  purified  the  chamber].  Nearly  all  texts  have 
chambers.  Of  itself  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  notion 
that  a  series  of  rooms  should  have  been  occupied  (so  Ryle) ;  but 
as  the  singular  is  used  everywhere  else,  it  must  be  restored  here. 
The  purifying  was  limited  to  the  room  occupied  as  shown  from 
its  restoration  to  its  original  use.  Ceremonial  cleansing  was 
common  even  in  early  times,  and  was  performed  in  various  ways, 
usually  by  the  symbolic  use  of  blood  or  water.  The  list  of  ar- 
ticles returned  to  this  room  is  shorter  than  in  v.  ^,  in  which 
there  is  doubtless  an  editorial  addition. 

6.  "iScn  .  .  .  VP^^]  (5^  et?  xbv  ?^atpbv  twv  •r)[i.£pwv  wv  TQXTjatzixiQv  xapa  Toii 
paatXew?,  xal  (asto:  to  TeXo?  twv  Titxepwv  wv  f)TT5ad[A7]v  iiapa  tou  ^aucXeox;. 
This  represents  two  interpretations  rather  than  two  texts. — a"'^^]  has 
the  specific  sense  of  a  year  (BDB.)  in  numerous  passages,  and  should 
be  so  understood  here  if  we  retain  the  usual  interpretation,  referring 
to  the  time  when  Neh.  started  for  his  second  visit  to  Jerus.  But 
Neh.  is  usually  very  exact  in  his  dates,  and  presumably  would  have 
specified  the  time  accurately  if  that  had  been  his  mng. — -7.  hd::':]  is 
found  elsw.  only  in  Ne.  3'"  12",  and  the  mng.  is  exactly  the  same  as  the 
common  n:;c'S,  for  which  it  is  prob.  an  error.  Neh.  would  hardly  use  a 
strange  word  alongside  of  a  familiar  one. — 8.  ^!<n  "h  j.'t>i]  (S^  has  a  dup., 
xocl  TovTypov  [Aoi  eydvT),  xal  iX'jnfjOfjv  aqjdSpa,  cf.  ^ND  ''7  nriM,  58. — 9.  niou'Sn] 
<&^  has  sg.  which  the  sense  requires. 

10-14.  Tithes  are  paid  to  the  Levites. 

Neh.,  finding  that  the  Lev.  hud  received  no  portions  and  were  driven 
to  their  fields  to  make  a  living,  rebukes  the  people,  and  all  Judah  pays 


292  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  tithes.  Officers  are  appointed  to  supervise  the  distribution  of  the 
offerings.  Neh.  prays  that  he  may  be  remembered  for  his  good  offices 
on  behalf  of  the  temple. 

10.  And  I  learned  that  the  portions  of  the  Levites  had  not  been 
paid].  This  condition  had  arisen  during  Nehemiah's  absence 
in  Persia.  In  the  twelve  years  of  his  former  governorship 
such  neglect  would  not  have  been  tolerated.  In  the  whole 
Persian  period  the  people  seem  to  have  been  slow  to  discharge 
the  lawful  obligations  to  the  temple,  cf.  Mai.  3^  '^■. — Attd  the 
Levites  had  fled  each  one  to  his  land].  The  Levites  may  have 
owned  land,  or  they  may  have  hired  themselves  out  to  other 
landowners  to  make  the  living  which  the  temple  offices  no 
longer  furnished  them. — And  the  singers  doing  the  work]  is  ap- 
parently a  gloss.  Nehemiah  seems  to  be  concerned  only  with  the 
Levites. — 11.  Afid  I  contended  with  the  rulers],  v.  5^,  where  we 
have  "with  the  nobles  and  rulers."  With  the  rulers  is  lacking 
in  the  best  Greek  texts.  The  fault  lay  with  the  whole  people, 
not  with  limited  classes  as  in  c.  5.  If  the  text  is  right,  the  rulers 
were  reproved  because  they  had  not  enforced  the  law. — Why 
is  the  house  of  God  neglected  ?]  The  implication  is  that  the  sacred 
offices  were  not  conducted  at  all  in  the  house  of  God,  and  that 
situation  in  turn  implies  that  the  Levites  were  those  who  exe- 
cuted the  priestly  offices,  that  is,  that  the  Deuteronomic  con- 
dition in  which  priests  and  Levites  were  identical  still  pre- 
vails.— And  I  gathered  them,  i.  e.,  the  Levites,  from  the  fields 
where  they  had  been  employed  in  secular  work;  and  I  placed 
them  at  their  station]  in  the  temple,  so  that  they  could  fulfil  their 
holy  offices.  Station  implies  not  only  place  in  the  sense  of 
locality,  but  also  covers  the  particular  ofl&ce  in  which  the  Levites 
were  employed. — 12.  And  all  Judah  brought  in].  The  response 
to  Nehemiah's  demand  was  general;  for  he  would  brook  no 
further  neglect  and  ruled  always  with  a  strong  hand.  Benjamin 
is  not  mentioned,  but  obviously  "Judah"  covers  the  whole 
people. — The  tithe  of  the  corn  and  of  the  ivine  and  of  the  oil].  In 
Dt.  the  tithe  of  the  corn,  etc.,  was  paid  every  3d  year,  and 
was  to  be  eaten  at  the  sanctuary.  The  Levites  and  the  poor 
were  to  share  in  these  feasts,  i2''-  "•  ^^  142^-  ^^  26^-.     In  the 


NEHEMIAH    13  293 

later  law  of  Holiness  the  tithe  became  the  absolute  property  of 
the  Levites  (Lv.  iS'^-^^). — 13.  This  verse  is  sadly  confused  in 
our  text;  by  eliminating  some  unnecessary  lumber  and  correct- 
ing from  (S,  we  get  the  true  sense:  and  I  committed  to  the  hands 
of  Shelemiah  the  priest  and  of  Zadok  the  scribe,  and  of  Pedaiah  of 
the  Levites  and  of  Hanan  the  son  of  Zakkur  the  son  of  Mattaniah, 
because  they  were  accounted  trustworthy,  to  them  [I  committed]  to 
distribute  to  their  brethren].  The  tithes  were  paid  into  the  treas- 
ury by  the  whole  people,  and  they  were  for  the  common  support 
of  the  Levites.  But  these  were  human,  like  many  other  ec- 
clesiastical officials,  and  the  problem  which  confronted  Nehe- 
miah  was  to  make  sure  of  an  equitable  distribution  so  that 
every  one  should  have  a  just  share  and  none  be  neglected  {of. 
Acts  6,  a  similar  condition  which  led  to  the  appointment  of  the 
seven  deacons).  Shelemiah  we  know  nothing  more  about,  as  he 
cannot  be  identified  with  the  men  of  that  name  in  Ezr.  9^* 
jo39.  41  Ne.  33°.  Two  Zadoks  worked  on  the  wall,  3"-  ^9,  but 
the  scribe  may  be  a  different  one  still.  Pedaiah  cannot  be  the 
one  who  stood  with  Ezra,  Ne.  %^,  and  is  hardly  the  wall-builder 
of  3".  In  spite  of  the  elaborate  genealogy  of  Hanan  and  the 
frequent  recurrence  of  the  name,  we  cannot  identify  this  man 
either.  The  treasurers  are  therefore  unknown  to  us  save  in 
this  enumeration,  but  were  appointed  because  they  were  deemed 
honest  so  as  to  insure  a  just  apportionment  of  the  Levitical  dues. 
— To  their  brethren]  would  imply  that  all  the  officers  were  Levites; 
but  the  expressions,  the  priest,  the  scribe,  and  especially  of  the 
Levites,  would  suggest  that  only  Pedaiah  belonged  to  that  order. 
Of  the  Levites  may,  however,  be  a  predicate  of  Shelemiah  and 
Zadok  as  well  as  of  Pedaiah,  since  the  priest  was  also  a  Levite 
and  the  scribe  may  have  well  been.  On  the  other  hand,  "  breth- 
ren" is  used  pretty  broadly,  and  the  Levites  might  be  regarded 
as  the  brethren  of  any  of  the  people. — 14.  See  similar  ejacula- 
tory  petitions,  2^  3^*'  5^^ — My  kindness],  i.  e.,  in  restoring  the 
support  of  the  Levites  and  so  the  re-establishment  of  the  sacred 
offices. — In  the  house  of  my  God  and  in  its  observances],  the  last 
clause  is  lacking  in  ^  and  may  be  a  gloss  added  by  the 
Chronicler. 


294  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

10.  'C'i']  (S^  xal  o't  xotouvTSs,  similarly  'B. — 11.  n^nNi]  ^l-  x,al  IxpfOrjv. 

— D^jjon-nx]  lacking  in  (gJ^AN — i^.  rnsiN-Sj?  msixi]  (S^^^  stX  x^''-p(xi<;) , 
(S^  xal  svsTetXdtir^v  sxl  x^'P"^?  —  n^-'ry  nvjNi.  This  is  the  only  occur- 
rence of  the  Hiph.,  and  it  is  used  in  a  peculiar  sense,  not  "I  caused 
to  store,"  but  "appointed  treasurer."  It  is  difficult  to  extract  this 
sense  by  the  usual  devices  of  calling  it  a  denominative  (BDB.).  (B 
offers  a  better  t-ext  and  one  that  should  be  adopted  here,  for  the  point 
is  not  the  naming  of  a  number  of  treasurers,  but  the  assignment  to 
certain  officers  of  the  delicate  task  of  distributing  the  tithes. — aT'-*-;.-] 
could  only  be  retained  by  rendering  and  with  them.  But  it  stands  here 
for  iT-Sy  as  (8,  being  misplaced  in  the  confusion  of  the  text. — aniV;"!] 
(|BAN  |.^'  aOxouc — 14.  "31  ^n'?N]  (Sban  ^.upfou  ^G  Geoij. 

15-22.  The  enforcement  of  the  Sabbath  law. 

Finding  the  people  working  in  the  fields  and  trading  with  the  Phoeni- 
cians on  the  Sabbath,  Neh.  rebuked  the  nobles  and  ordered  the  gates 
of  the  city  closed  during  the  holy  day.  He  threatened  the  merchants 
who  lodged  by  the  wall  over  the  Sabbath  waiting  for  the  first  day  of 
the  week.     Note  the  similar  conditions  described  in  lo^^. 

15.  In  those  days]  cf.  v.  ^,  another  indefinite  note  of  time. 
Nehemiah  evidently  made  a  tour  of  the  comitry  on  the  Sabbath, 
possibly  for  the  purpose  of  noting  the  way  in  which  the  day  was 
kept. — The  points  of  violation  may  easily  be  obscured  in  trans- 
lation. These  are  only  two,  as  I  understand  the  text:  (i) 
[people]  were  treading  wine-presses  on  the  sabbath].  This  is  the 
only  case  in  OT.  where  we  find  the  literal  use  of  this  expression. 
But  the  figurative  use  shows  that  the  wine-press  was  always 
trodden,  for  another  verb  in  Jos.  4'^  is  suspicious.  (2)  And 
[people]  were  gathering  in  the  harvests  and  loading  asses  with  grape- 
wine  and  figs  atid  all  sorts  of  produce  and  bringing  them  to  Jeru- 
salem on  the  sabbath  day].  All  the  deeds  enumerated  were  con- 
tributing to  the  one  point  of  importance,  the  carrying  produce 
to  Jerusalem  on  the  Sabbath,  and  naturally  selling  it  on  that 
day.  The  recurrent  use  of  sabbath  day  justifies  this  connection. 
■ — And  I  testified  on  the  day  they  sold  provisions]. 

Ryle  says  this  could  not  have  taken  place  on  the  Sabbath,  but  on  a 
subsequent  day  when  the  food  gathered  on  the  Sabbath  was  sold. 
There  was  objection  then  apparently  because  the  food  had  been  gath- 
ered on  the  Sabbath  and  so  was  tainted.     Easy-going  criticism  surely! 


NEHEMIAH    I3  295 

The  Vrss.  offer  a  suggestive  hint.  One  Gk.  text  has:  in  the  day  of  their 
traffic  because  they  sold  provisions;  and  B:  I  protested  that  they  should 
sell  on  a  day  when  it  was  lawful  to  sell.  On  this  basis  we  can  easily  re- 
construct the  text  and  get :  /  protested  because  they  sold  provisions  on  the 
sabbath  day.  The  food  was  manifestly  sold  on  the  Sabbath  as  it  was 
borne  to  Jerus.  on  that  day;  and  the  offence  was  the  selling  as  much 
as  the  gathering.  Neh.  does  not  seem  to  have  raised  his  voice  against 
the  work  that  was  done  in  the  fields,  but  only  against  the  traffic,  which 
disturbed  the  peace  of  Jerus.  While  he  notices  the  work  done,  v.  J*,  at 
least  nothing  more  is  said  about  that  phase  of  the  trouble.  This  brings 
us  into  exact  agreement  with  the  conditions  in  Am.  8\  where  barter 
alone  was  suspended  on  the  Sabbath.  Evidently  the  amplification  of 
the  Sabbath  law  was  later  than  Neh. 

16.  Now  the  Tyrians  dwelt  in  it];  "it"  could  only  be  Jeru- 
salem, but  the  use  of  that  name  in  v.  ^^  can  hardly  serve  as  an 
antecedent  here. 

Tyrians  is  lacking  in  (&,  and  prob.  should  be  omitted,  for  they  are  not 
named  again  in  the  long  passage.  Neh.  blames  the  nobles  of  Judah 
and  calls  them  the  profaners  of  the  Sabbath.  It  is  true  that  their 
guilt  might  consist  in  buying  what  was  offered  for  sale,  cf.  10".  But 
it  is  difficult  to  think  of  Phoenician  merchants  as  residents  of  Jerus.  at 
this  period.  On  the  other  hand,  c.  5  shows  that  the  nobles  were  greedy 
of  money,  and  would  not  be  likely  to  stickle  at  profitable  traffic  even 
on  the  Sabbath.  The  passage  seems  to  me  so  corrupt  that  understand- 
ing is  not  possible.  Perhaps  the  best  we  can  do  is  to  follow  (I  and  render: 
and  there  resided  therein  those  who  brought  in  fish  atui  other  merchandise 
and  sold  them  on  the  sabbath  to  the  people  of  Judah  in  Jerus.  "Peo- 
ple of  Judah"  admittedly  suggests  that  the  traders  were  foreigners; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  in  a  passage  so  full  of  difficulties  we  cannot  press 
details.  Moreover,  the  purchasers  could  hardly  be  described  in  any 
other  way.  To  try  to  get  sense  I  propose :  and  the  provision  bearers  re- 
turned therein,  bringing  fish,  etc.  Neh.  had  warned  them  on  their  first 
offence,  v.  i^,  protesting  against  the  desecration,  and  supposing  that  the 
matter  was  ended.  On  the  next  Sabbath  the  dealers  returned  bringing 
other  wares.  Neh.  had  objected  to  their  traffic,  possibly  mentioning 
the  wine  and  figs  which  they  offered  for  sale.  The  dealers  may  have 
supposed  that  he  could  not  object  to  fish,  but  the  reading  may  be 
"corn." — Neh.  is,  at  all  events,  aroused  now,  and  his  usual  vigour  and 
resource  show  themselves. 

17.  And  I  contended  with  the  nobles  of  Judah],  cf.  v.  ",  either 
because  they  made  no  attempt  to  stop  this  barter,  or  because 


296  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

they  were  engaged  in  it.  It  is  possible  that  sons  should  be 
read  for  nobles  (v.  i.),  and  in  that  case  the  reproof  is  admin- 
istered to  those  who  had  purchased  supplies  on  the  Sabbath. — 
Profaning  the  sabbath  day]  is  late,  found  only  in  Ex.  31"  (P), 
Is.  56^-  ^  Ez.  pass. — 18.  The  implication  is  that  the  woes  of 
Israel  were  due  to  the  desecration  of  the  Sabbath.  In  the  scant 
testimony  we  have  from  the  earlier  days  (Am.  8^),  the  Sabbath 
was  kept  in  letter  but  not  in  spirit.  Ez.  makes  the  profanation 
of  the  Sabbath  one  of  the  serious  offences,  20"  22^  23^*.  But 
our  passage  more  likely  refers  to  the  general  disobedience  to 
the  law  which  was  supposed  to  be  the  cause  of  Israel's  downfall, 
from  which  Jerusalem  was  still  suffering. — And  ye  would  add 
wrath  upon  Israel  by  profaning  the  sabbath].  Another  violation 
of  law  would  lead  to  further  manifestations  of  divine  wrath,  of 
which  Israel  would  be  the  victim.  This  sort  of  speech  is  couched 
in  the  hackneyed  terms  of  which  N.  is  free,  and  doubtless 
what  Nehemiah  actually  said  has  been  replaced  with  the  con- 
ventional prophetic  utterance. — 19.  Nehemiah  now  takes  meas- 
ures to  enforce  the  law  against  barter  on  the  Sabbath. — When 
the  gates  of  Jerusalem  grew  dark  before  the  sabbath]  is  an  impossible 
way  of  saying  "when  evening  came  on."  The  text  must  be 
changed  and  we  may  best  render  with  (^:  when  the  gates  were 
put  in  place.  The  reference  plainly  is  to  the  closing  of  the  gates, 
and  only  indirectly  the  approach  of  evening.  The  time  is 
sufficiently  indicated  by  the  phrase  before  the  sabbath.  Nehe- 
miah had  previously  directed  the  closing  of  the  gates  at  night 
(7^),  and  it  is  to  that  customary  act  to  which  reference  is  made 
here. — And  I  spoke]  is  an  accidental  repetition  from  its  use  fur- 
ther on  in  the  verse.  The  doors  in  the  gates  were  naturally 
closed  when  the  gates  were  shut. — A  nd  I  said]  =  commaftded,  as 
in  V.  ^,  because  now  a  new  regulation  is  issued  (to  the  porters) 
that  they  should  not  open  them  until  after  the  sabbath].  It  now 
became  impossible  for  a  person  to  go  in  or  out  of  Jerusalem  on 
the  Sabbath. — And  I  stationed  some  of  my  servants  at  the  gates]', 
a  superfluous  precaution,  says  Winckler,  Alt.  Forsch.  ii,^^^,  since 
no  one  could  pass  through  the  closed  gates.  Not  if  they  were 
kept  closed,  but  Nehemiah  puts  his  trusty  servants  by  the 


NEHEMIAH    13  297 

gates  to  see  that  no  porter  is  induced  to  reopen  the  gates  by 
bribery,  persuasion,  or  threats. — That  no  produce  should  come  in 
on  the  sabbath  day],  showing  plainly  the  purpose  of  Nehemiah's 
elaborate  precautions.  Perhaps  the  words  may  imply  that  a 
person  might  find  passage  through  the  gates  if  he  carried  no 
merchandise. — 20.  Afui  the  traders  and  the  dealers  in  all  kinds  of 
wares  lodged  without  Jerusalem].  The  usual  explanation  is  that 
the  merchants,  finding  the  gates  shut,  lodged  outside  of  the  city 
until  the  Sabbath  was  over.  But  it  is  difScult  to  see  why  Nehe- 
miah  should  so  seriously  object  to  that.  Indeed,  their  camping 
outside  was  no  violation  of  the  law  from  any  point  of  view. 
The  text  is  doubtful.  In  (B  we  find  a  striking  reading:  and  they 
all  lodged  and  engaged  in  traffic  outside  of  Jerusalem].  There  is 
abundant  cause  for  the  wrath  of  the  governor.  He  had  stopped 
the  trading  in  Jerusalem  and  had  kept  the  gates  closed,  only  to 
find  the  traffic  resumed  outside  of  the  walls.  The  purchasers 
may  have  been  those  who  resided  outside  the  city,  or  Jeru- 
salemites  may  have  been  allowed  to  pass  through  the  gates. — 
Once  or  twice],  i.  e.,  for  one  or  two  Sabbaths.  This  traffic  went 
on  for  a  few  weeks  before  Nehemiah  took  notice  of  it.  When 
he  did  act,  he  went  at  the  task  with  his  usual  thoroughness. — 
21.  And  I  protested  to  them  and  said  unto  them].  "Testified,"  of 
EV^.,  hardly  gives  the  sense.  The  word  serves  to  introduce  the 
threat. — Why  are  you  lodging  before  the  wall  ?]  There  is  no  word 
of  trading;  but  (S  may  be  right  in  v.  -°  none  the  less.  The  only 
way  to  break  up  the  trading  would  be  to  keep  the  merchants 
away  altogether. — //  yoii  do  it  a  second  time].  According  to 
v.  2°  they  may  have  done  it  a  second  time  already.  If  that  is 
correct,  we  must  render  more  generally:  "if  you  do  it  again,"  a 
sense  the  words  easily  bear. — /  will  put  a  hand  on  you],  i.  e., 
inflict  punishment,  though  the  same  expression  is  used  elsewhere 
in  a  good  sense.  The  threat  of  punishment  served  its  purpose, 
for  the  traders  did  not  come  [to  Jerusalem  any  more]  on  the 
sabbath. — 22.  And  I  said  to  the  Levites  that  they  should  purify 
themselves  and  come  in  to  watch  the  gates  to  sanctify  the  sabbath 
day].  The  passage  plainly  shows  a  later  hand.  Nehemiah  had 
already  brought  the  Levites  to  Jerusalem,  v.  ".    If  they  were 


298  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  porters,  they  were  not  trusted,  as  Nehemiah  set  his  own 
servants  over  them,  v. ".  The  passage  naturally  ends  with  v.  22, 
but  the  Chronicler  was  not  satisfied  to  have  the  Levites  ignored. 
— On  the  closing  prayer,  cj,  v. ". — According  to  God's  good  deeds] 
now,  not  his  own  as  in  v.  ". 

15.  nmj]  =  r\yT\\y,  from  p"',  which  does  not  occur  in  Heb.,  pi.  only 
here.  The  wine-press  was  usually  hewn  from  the  rock  {DB.  'B&toz.-^'^  f-, 
V.  also  Haupt,  SBOT.  on  i  K.  i"^).  On  this  account  it  was  gener- 
ally in  a  hillside,  in  an  out-of-the-way  place,  and  so  the  wine-press 
served  Gideon  as  a  secret  threshing-floor  (Ju.  6i')-  The  word  is  found 
also  in  Is.  63-  Lam.  i'^  Jo.  4".  The  passage  last  cited  rd.  1J^^,  as 
m  is  never  found  with  nj  and  is  inappropriate,  v.  Mar.  Dodekapr. — 
nianyn]  does  not  mean  "sheaves,"  as  Wetzstein  contends  {Zcil.  f. 
Eth.  1873,  2.rt.  "Dreschtafel"),  though  it  might  mean  "shocks  of 
grain."  But  in  Ru.  3'  Ct.  7'  Hg.  2'«  it  refers  to  the  heap  of  threshed 
grain.  That  cannot  be  its  mng.  here,  for  the  grain  season  (3d  month) 
was  long  past  when  grapes  and  figs  were  ripe  (7th  month),  and  Ryle 
is  reduced  to  the  desperate  expedient  of  supposing  the  people  were 
bringing  in  the  straw!  The  word  means  piles  of  any  sort  as  we  use 
"pile"  in  "wood  pile,"  "potato  pile,"  etc.  In  2  Ch.  315-3  jt  refers 
to  droves  of  oxen  and  sheep  as  well  as  to  other  dedicated  offerings, 
perhaps  of  grain  and  fruits.  I  have  rendered  by  the  general  word 
harvests,  for  it  refers  to  the  wine  in  skins,  figs,  and  whatever  else  was 
carried  to  market. — n^i]  is  rightly  ignored  in  d  H.  Even  if  original 
it  has  no  translatable  force.  It  may  be  an  error  for  ns. — In  late  Heb. 
we  may  find  1  before  a  direct  obj.,  for  r''  et  sq.  is  obj.  of  o'Ddj?. — aojy  j"] 
might  be  wine  and  grapes  as  Vrss.  and  all  authorities  render;  but  the 
absence  of  a  conj.  suggests  st.  cstr.,  and  it  is  better  to  translate  "grape- 
wine." — xs'id-Sd]  is  easy  to  understand,  but  hard  to  render  tersely. 
It  means  all  the  other  marketable  stuff. — ^'X  .  .  .  D10]  OJ^an  |y  i^^ipq^ 
•jcpdaewi;  auxwv,  lacking  n^x;  (S^  adds  oxe  exwXouv  extaiTtayibv,  showing 
one  of  the  usual  duplicates.  31  has  an  interesting  reading,  or  possibly 
interpretation :  ut  in  die  qua  vendere  licerel  venderenL  The  original  text 
must  have  been  n^x  didd3  natyn  ora. — 16.  onxni]  lacking  in  ^^^^. 
The  clause  is  quite  unintelligible,  and  some  conjectural  emendation  is 
essential.  I  venture  to  suggest  na  ^2y^f''  Qiixni.  The  changes  are  very 
slight,  and  good  sense  is  secured.  This  text  has  the  further  advantage 
of  being  a  suitable  sequel  to  v. ",  for  we  can  hardly  be  dealing  with  a 
new  situation  entirely.  Neh.  was  not  fighting  Phoenicians,  but  Sabbath- 
trading  among  the  Jews.  Tyrians  may  have  been  substituted  by  a  later 
hand  on  the  basis  of  10". — jni]  is  wrong,  and  we  may  substitute  jjt 
as  easily  as  Ji. — 17.  nn]  ^^^^  Tot?  utoti;  -zolq  eXsuOipot*;,  showing  an 
original  text,  'J3,  and  a  later  correction,  fortunately  not  by  substitu- 


NEHEMIAH    1 3  299 

tlon. — 18.  u^n"?}*]  OJBANL  j^^g  ^^»  ai^jo^^;  ^  Qehq  TitAuv,  a  dup.  showing 
on>Sx  and  U'h'^n'. — 19.  iS'^s]  is  impossible.  To  describe  the  coming  of 
evening  by  saying  "the  gates  grew  dark"  is  too  far-fetched.  Indeed, 
this  vb.  must  be  ejected  from  the  Heb.  lexicon.  It  occurs  elsw.  only 
in  Ez.  31^,  but  is  corrected  by  most  recent  writers.  <S  has  xax^oxiQaav, 
prob.  ^DJ?.  As  this  may  be  rendered  "put  in  place,"  the  sense  is  good. 
C6^  precedes  by  -^auxaaa  =  ap'^.  Similarly  B  cum  quicvissent  porta. 
Winckler  {Alt.  Forsch.  ii,^^0  follows  ^  and  renders  from  As.  salalu, 
"drop,"  "the  merchants  deposited  their  fish  at  the  gates"  (reading 
ny'iVj).  Why  that  should  be  done  he  does  not  say  and  I  cannot  guess. 
— mrsi']  lacking  in  <&^. — "li'jai]  lacking  in  (&^^^. — 20.  iJ''S'']  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  they  spent  the  night,  but  means  rather  "went 
into  camp,"  perhaps  setting  up  a  sort  of  temporary  market. — niSsnn] 
(gBAS  xiivTsq,  (^^  TCtzvTSs  ot  [xsTtzPoXot. — IDSO  ho  >13Dl]  (g^AN  y^^\  £Xo{T)aaV 
xpaatv.  At  end  (6^  reads  xal  sKw^jOTjaav  axa^  xal  hie,,  adding  inSom. — 
22.  D^iyjyn  . . .  onrmn]  (&^  Vva  epx6[Ji.£vot  ayviXwyxat  xal  (puXiaawat  T;a<; 
icuXa?,  showing  no  difference  of  text  but  only  an  interpretation. 

23-31.  Mixed  marriages. 

Neh.  finds  Judeans  married  to  Philistine  women  and  the  children 
were  unable  to  speak  Jewish.  He  punished  the  offenders  severely  and 
exacted  an  oath  against  the  repetition  of  the  offence.  The  case  of 
Solomon's  downfall  is  cited.  The  son-in-law  of  Sanb.,  a  grandson  of 
Eliashib,  was  banished  from  Jerus.  The  book  closes  with  general 
statements  about  the  temple  ritual.  Not  more  than  vv.  "-25.  as.  29a.  31b 
are  from  N.  This  is  the  kind  of  story  which  the  Chr.  would  delight  in 
elaborating. 

23.  In  those  days  [cf.  v.  1^]  /  saw  the  Judeans  who  had  married 
women  that  were  Ashdodites],  Ammonites,  Moabites,  seems  to  me 
a  later  addition.  These  were  the  people  toward  whom  there 
was  the  greatest  animosity,  cf.  v.  ^,  and  therefore  these  names 
are  added  here.  There  may  have  been  marriages  with  these 
peoples,  but  Ashdodite  in  cf.  v.  ^*  shows  that  Nehemiah  is  deal- 
ing with  a  single  class. — 24.  We  may  render:  afid  their  sons  were 
speaking  half  AsModite],  a  corruption  of  speech  producing  a 
patois,  half  foreign  and  half  Jewish;  or  and  half  their  sons  spoke 
Ashdodite*].  The  latter  is  more  probable,  in  spite  of  the  balance 
of  opinion  in  favour  of  the  former.  A  patois  can  only  be  devel- 
oped in  the  course  of  several  generations.    The  children  would 

*  Really  Nabatsan,  Neubauer,  Sludia  Biblica.^K 


300  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

be  pretty  certain  to  use  the  speech  of  the  mother.  And  the 
clause  and  they  were  not  able  to  speak  Jewish]  supports  this 
view,  for  it  is  in  contrast  with  the  statement  that  some  of  the 
sons  spoke  another  tongue.  From  the  free  intercourse  between 
Israelites  and  Philistines  in  the  early  days  we  would  infer  that 
their  languages  were  mutually  intelligible. 

nm.T']  is  used  of  the  Jewish  speech  in  2  K.  iS^'-  ^s^  to  which  we 
have  the  parallels  in  Is.  36i'-  "  and  2  Ch.  3218,  the  only  occurrences. 
The  word  in  those  passages  certainly  means  Hebrew;  indeed,  Heze- 
kiah's  officers  asked  the  Assyrians  not  to  speak  Heb.  as  they  were 
doing,  but  Aram.  The  word  prob.  means  the  same  thing  here,  and  not 
Aram.  (Smith, /er.  ii,^").  Neh.  wrote  good  Heb.,  and  that  was  doubt- 
less still  the  language  of  the  people.  The  construction  indicates  an 
incomplete  clause.  The  rendering  strictly  correct  is:  and  their  sons,  Imlf 
of  them  spoke  Ashdodite;  we  expect  a  corresponding  clause,  "and  half 

of  them  spoke ."     The  resumption  of  the  pi.  shows  that  we  go 

back  to  "sons"  and  that  it  is  predicated  of  the  whole  body  that  "they 
were  unable  to  speak  Jewish,"  that  is,  half  of  them  spoke  one  language 
and  half  another,  but  none  of  them  could  speak  Heb. — But  according  to 
the  tongue  of  people  and  people]  is  a  gl.  intended  to  define  more  accurately 
the  foregoing,  but  the  definition  is  quite  as  obscure  as  the  text. — p^'S] 
is  used  often  in  the  sense  of  language,  but  mostly  in  late  passages. 

25.  The  violence  of  the  punishment  shows  how  greatly  Nehe- 
miah  was  incensed:  /  cursed  them  and  I  smote  certain  of  them], 
perhaps  some  chief  offenders,  and  I  pulled  out  their  hair],  usually 
from  the  beard,  cj.  Is.  50^,  but  in  Ezr.  9^  both  hair  of  head  and 
beard  as  a  sign  of  distress;  "my  cheeks  to  them  that  pulled  out 
the  hair,"  Is.  50^,  would  indicate  that  this  was  a  regular  form  of 
punishment,  as  we  might  say  he  gave  his  neck  to  the  hangman. 
The  hair  was  all  pulled  out,  as  the  word  means  to  be  smooth. 
The  loss  of  the  beard  was  in  itself  a  disgrace,  2  S.  10^. — And  I 
made  them  sivear  by  [the  name  of]  God].  The  oath  is  put  in  the 
second  person,  either  to  conform  to  Dt.  7^  though  there  we  find 
the  singular  and  a  different  word  for  "take,"  or  to  reproduce 
the  exact  form  of  the  oath,  though  according  to  our  usage  that 
would  be  in  the  first  person.  Nehemiah  had  found  Jewish  men 
married  to  Philistine  women,  not  the  reverse.  Still  the  general 
oath  would  be  natural  in  view  of  the  Deuteronomic  law. — And 


NEHEMIAH    1 3  301 

for  yoiir:>clves]  is  not  in  DL.  nor  in  Lhe  oldest  Greek  MSS.  Yet 
it  is  the  most  appropriate  part  of  the  oath,  as  Nehemiah  is 
dealing  with  men  who  had  themselves  married  foreign  women. 
— 26.  Solomon  is  now  quoted  as  a  horrible  example  of  a  great 
man  led  astray  by  foreign  wives.  This  is  not  due  to  Nehemiah, 
as  he  appears  to  have  been  disturbed  purely  by  the  corruption 
of  the  language,  and  feared  the  Jewish  people  were  in  danger 
of  losing  their  identity. — Did  not  Solomon  the  king  of  Israel  sin 
in  regard  to  these  [foreign  wives].  And  among  many  nations  there 
was  not  a  king  like  him]  is  based  upon  the  promise  in  i  K.  3^^ 
And  he  was  beloved  of  his  God],  cf.  2  S.  12-^  ^■.  Even  him],  in  spite 
of  his  greatness  and  the  blessings  showered  upon  him  from  on 
high,  theforeigti  wives  made  to  sin]  or  turned  aside  as  in  i  K.  11^ 
"turned  aside  his  heart." — 27.  The  conclusion  of  Nehemiah's 
assumed  address.  As  it  stands  the  verse  is  barely  translatable. 
B  has  often  a  happy  disposition  to  insist  on  sense  and  gives  us: 
and  shall  we  by  disobedience  do  all  this  great  evil  that  we  should  act 
insolently  toward  our  God  ayid  marry  foreign  women.  To  make  a 
bold  try  at  the  text,  we  might  extract:  and  as  for  you  shall  we 
listen  to  [tolerate]  the  doing  of  this  great  evil,  the  acting  violently 
against  our  God,  the  marrying  of  foreign  women? — 28.  We  find 
now  a  specific  instance  of  a  foreign  alliance  which  naturally 
aroused  the  governor. — And  one  of  the  sons  of  Jehoiada,  the  son 
of  Eliashib  the  high  priest,  was  son-in-law  to  Sanballat  the  Horon- 
ite].  The  offender  could  hardly  be  Jonathan  the  successor  of 
Jehoiada,  12^°'-,  but  must  have  been  another  son,  since  his 
name  is  not  given.  As  Eliashib  was  contemporary  with  Nehe- 
miah {cf.  V.  *),  he  must  have  been  an  old  man  at  this  time  to 
have  a  grandson  old  enough  to  marry.  It  is  strange  to  find  a 
person  so  vaguely  introduced;  as  v.  ^^  introduces  a  new  section, 
I  suspect  that  the  original  text  read:  "  and  in  those  days  Jehoiada 
the  son  of  EHashib."  That  would  agree  better  with  the  chro- 
nology. Sanballat  was  one  of  the  most  troublesome  of  Nehe- 
miah's enemies,  2^°  3^^  4^  6^  It  was  by  such  alliances  that 
the  enemy  was  kept  posted  in  regard  to  Nehemiah's  doings, 
cf.  6'*. — And  I  drove  him  from  me].  Drove  away  is  used  of 
putting  enemies  to  flight,  i  Ch.  8"  12^^  of  driving  a  mother 


302  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

(from  her  house),  Prov.  19"^.  Doubtless  the  offender  was  ban- 
ished from  Jerusalem.  His  punishment  was  different  from  that 
inflicted  upon  the  others,  v.  ^^  because  of  the  hostility  toward 
Sanballat  and  his  house. — 29.  Instead  of  supplication  we  find 
now  imprecation  as  in  6^^.  Remember  against  them,  0  my  God, 
for  they  are  corrupters  of  the  priesthood].  But  there  was  only 
one  priestly  offender  mentioned,  and  Nehemiah  was  not  con- 
cerned about  the  purity  of  the  priesthood.  Jehoiada's  son  was 
not  a  grave  offender  because  he  was  a  priest,  but  because  he 
had  married  Sanballat's  daughter.  *h\^^  has  another  sense, 
which  appears  in  (&,  and  Nehemiah  may  have  said:  because  they 
have  sought  kinship  with  the  priesthood.  The  imprecation  would 
then  be  against  the  house  of  Sanballat;  perhaps  with  a  recol- 
lection of  Tobiah,  vv.  "^  '^•. — The  covenant  of  the  priesthood  and  of 
the  Levites].  For  which  we  find  in  the  Greek  text:  of  the  priests 
and  of  the  Levites,  and  in  U:  the  priestly  and  the  Levitical  right. 
As  the  passage  stands  it  is  part  of  the  object  of  "corrupters," 
cf.  Dt.  33^""  Mai.  2^-^. — 30.  And  I  purified  them  from  everything 
foreign].  This  expression  is  more  comprehensive  than  "mixed 
marriages."  But  it  is  probably  a  late  addition. — And  I  ap- 
pointed the  charges  for  the  priests  and  for  the  Levites  each  one  for 
his  task].  For  the  Levites  this  had  already  been  done,  v.  ". — 
31.  Aiuifor  the  offering  of  wood  in  its  appointed  seasons],  cf.  10'*; 
and  for  the  first-fruits],  cf.  10^*^  ^■. — Remember  me,  O  my  God,  for 
good],  breaking  off  the  supplication  abruptly,  cf.  vv.  "•  i'-  22. 

23.  i3''B'n]  is  impossible  after  an  ace.  subj.;  ($  ol  IxiOtcav,  B  ducetiles. 
We  may  rd.  oiaicnn  or  substitute  -\vh  for  nx  before  oninin.  On  2^^, 
mng.  to  marry,  found  only  in  Ezr.-Ne.,  v.  Ezr.  lo^. — 24.  djji  ay  pu'Sai] 
lacking  in  (S^'^*"'.  It  has  the  appearance  of  a  crude  explanatory  gl. 
—25.  Da-iD«i]  lacking  in  (gBA^^._^^^1]  lacking  in  (S'^'^^'.— 26.  hSn-Sj:] 
CgBAN  ouTwq,  <S^  itep'  TouTwv. — Aftcf  iDDj]  (S^  has  [lifac;. — ix^ann]  <jg 
e^l/,>.tvov  =  iBH,  the  word  used  in  i  K.  ii^. — 28.  "ijinn]  lacking  in  (Sfi^^. 
— 29.  "''^Nj]  C5^'^^  d7'xtffT£((5t,  i.  e.,  understanding  hax,  to  act  as  kinsman; 
(S^  dtXh-ioyiixq. — njHDns]  (&^  twv  Up^wv. — "nni]  H  jiisqne  sacerdotale  et 
Leviticum. 


EZRA   7-10  303 


EZR.  7-10.     THE    HISTORY    OF    EZRA. 

The  priest-scribe  receives  a  liberal  firman  from  Artaxerxes, 
gathers  a  company,  and  goes  to  Jerusalem.  There  he  learns  of 
the  mixed  marriages,  and  after  prayer  and  fasting  measures 
are  taken  for  their  dissolution.  Ezra's  career  is  continued  in 
Ne.  8  and  in  Esd.  a  part  of  that  chapter  follows  Ezr,  10  directly, 
an  order  adopted  here.  It  has  been  shown  in  the  Intr.  §  ^°  that 
Ezra  is  later  than  Nehemiah,  belonging  to  the  period  of  Ar- 
taxerxes II. 

The  basis  of  this  section  is,  I  believe,  the  memoirs  of  Ezra  (v.  Intr.  §  ^(2)). 
This  source  is  used  with  few  exceptions  in  c.  8/.  In  c.  10  there  are 
but  two  buried  indications  of  the  original  E.,  v.  on  vv. ".  19.  Who 
revised  the  text  of  c.  10  and  how  radical  the  revision  was  it  is  hard  to 
say.  It  seems  plain  that  there  is  more  than  one  hand  visible  in  the 
editing.  Vv.  *-'  do  not  seem  to  come  from  the  same  source  as  vv. '-". 
It  appears  that  there  was  a  gradual  transforming  of  the  memoirs  into 
the  third  p.,  for  various  Gk.  texts  show  more  of  it  than  MT.  In  the 
main  the  story  seems  to  be  entirely  worthy  of  confidence. 

7'"°  =  Esd.  8'"^    The  introduction  to  the  stbry  of  Ezra.— 

The  narrative  consists  chiefly  of  the  priest's  genealogy  and  of- 
fice and  of  the  dates  of  his  departure  from  Babylon  and  arrival 
at  Jerusalem. — 1.  And  after  these  things],  a  general  statement 
meant  to  connect  this  passage  with  Ezr.  6  which  precedes  in  MT., 
a  favourite  phrase  of  the  Chronicler. — In  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
the  king  of  Persia].    The  reference  is  to  Artaxerxes  II  (404-358). 

Ezra's  genealogy  is  traced  through  seventeen  generations  back  to 
Aaron.  The  genealogy  is  wrong  in  several  respects,  v.  I.  Were  we  to  allow 
three  generations  to  a  century,  this  would  carry  us  back  567  years,  that  is, 
about  to  the  period  of  Solomon.  Serai  ah  is  the  same  pr.  named  in 
Ne.  II".  Azariah  is  lacking  in  the  priestly  genealogy,  Ne.  11",  but 
recurs  3  t.  in  that  of  i  Ch.  5-'  ^-  (EV.  6^  ^■).  The  name,  which  means 
Yahweh  hath  helped,  was  borne  by  many  persons.  Hilkiah  was  a  high 
pr.  of  Josiah's  time,  2  K.  22^  the  one  who  found  the  book  of  Dt., 
and  from  the  table  in  i  Ch.  5  this  might  be  the  same  one. — 2.  Shallum 
is  found  as  Meshullam  in  Ne.  11"  i  Ch.  9".  Like  others  in  the  list, 
it  was  a  common  name. — Zadok  occurs  twice  in  i  Ch.  ^^*-  ^s.  The  best- 
known  pr.  of  this  name  was  the  one  whom  Solomon  exalted  over  the 


304  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

deposed  Abiathar,  i  K.  2".  Ahilub  is  named  as  father  of  Zadok  in 
2  S.  8",  but  the  text  is  rejected  by  We.  {Biicher  Sam.). — 3.  Amariah. 
This  name  is  also  repeated  in  1  Ch.  5''-  ".  Azariah  in  the  Chr.'s  table 
is  wanting  at  this  place,  though  found  3  t.  elsw.,  Amariah  being  the  son 
of  Meraioth.  The  name  fails  also  in  Esd.^''-.  Meraioth  occurs  in  Ne. 
II"  I  Ch.  9"  between  Zadok  and  Ahitub,  evidence  of  the  imperfection 
of  these  genealogies. — 4.  Zerahiah,  outside  of  the  lists  in  Ch.,  occurs 
only  in  8*.  Bukki  is  the  name  of  a  chief  in  Dan,  Nu.  34". — 5.  Ahishua 
is  named  among  the  sons  of  Bela,  i  Ch.  8^  Bela  being  a  son  of  Benj. 
Phinehas,  Eleazer,  and  Aaron  are  well  known. — The  first  pr.]  applies 
to  Aaron  and  should  not  be  rendered  "the  chief  pr. "  as  in  EV^ 
(6  gives  it  correctly. 

6.  This  Ezra]  is  not  right.  The  words  can  only  be  explained 
as  a  resumption,  the  subject  in  v.  ^  being  too  far  separated  from 
the  verb,  and  we  should  render:  he  [Ezra]  went  upfront  Babylon], 
But  the  text  is  made  to  fit  the  later  introduction  of  the  gene- 
alogy.— He  was  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses].  Ezra  would 
not  have  applied  this  term  to  himself.  The  word  rendered 
scribe  is  used  often  in  the  pre-exilic  writings  of  a  royal  official, 
a  secretary;  so  in  Persia,  Est.  3^^  8";  it  is  given  to  Baruch, 
Jeremiah's  private  secretary,  who  wrote  his  prophecies  at  his 
dictation,  Je.  36'^.  The  royal  scribe's  business  was  to  write  a 
report  of  the  historic  events  as  they  occurred  and  to  inscribe 
the  king's  edicts.  The  idea  of  the  word  became  then  essen- 
tially "a,  writer."  The  term  applied  to  Ezra  does  not  imply 
primarily  that  he  was  learned  in  the  law  (Str.  Neuheb.  Sprf), 
but  that  he  was  an  expert  with  the  pen,  writing  or  copying 
the  law.  Inevitably  the  scribes  became  learned  in  the  law; 
see  the  fine  passage  in  Sirach  38^^39".  The  adjective  "ready" 
or  "quick"  shows  the  true  idea.  In  papyrus  49  there  is  the 
term  "a  wise  and  ready  scribe"  (Sachau,"*).  The  law  of 
Moses  is  either  the  completed  Pentateuch  or  the  priestly  por- 
tion thereof.  Ezra  is  supposed  to  have  brought  this  law-book 
with  him. — Which  Yahweh  the  God  of  Israel  had  given],  the  ante- 
cedent being  the  law,  which  is  everywhere  assigned  to  a  divine 
origin,  Moses  having  received  it  from  God.  V.''  is  very  obscure. 
The  best  we  can  make  out  of  MT.  is:  and  the  king  gave  to  him  all 
that  he  sought  according  to  the  hand  of  Yahweh  upon  him];  or 


EZRA    7-10  305 

with  (S:  because  the  hand  of  Yahweli  was  upon  him.  Esd.  reads: 
and  the  king  gave  him  honor,  for  he  found  favor  with  him  for  all  his 
undertakings. — 7.  The  classes  that  went  up  with  Ezra  are  the 
same  as  those  in  c.  2.  In  his  own  account  priests,  Levites,  and 
Nethinim  are  mentioned,  but  not  singers  or  porters,  8^^^-. — 
In  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes  the  king].  On  this  date,  v.  i., 
Intr.  §  '0,  Kost.  Wied.^^^. — 8.  Esd.  omits  and  he  came  to  Jerusa- 
lem] and  has  in  one  text  (^)  "second"  year  instead  of  "seventh." 
Wellhausen  proposed  twenty-seventh,  but  that  does  not  help 
much. — 9.  For  on  the  first  day  of  the  first  month].  This  date  is 
found  in  nearly  all  the  Vrss.,  and  is  emphasised  because  it  was 
the  beginning  of  the  year. — That  was  the  beginning  of  the  going 
upfront  Babylon].  This  as  well  as  the  date  preceding  is  lacking 
in  two  Greek  texts,  but  that  makes  the  repetition  more  mean- 
ingless than  it  is  even  in  MT. 

Esd.  reads:  he  went  out  from  Bah.  The  text  is  not  very  certain. 
But  the  statement  shows  that  the  Journey  from  Bab.  to  Jerus.  lasted 
exactly  four  months.  The  time  is  meant  to  include  the  encampment  at 
Ahava,  8'\  from  which  place  a  final  start  was  made  on  the  12th  day  of 
the  ist  month.  The  obscure  statement  above  may  be  due  to  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  original  start  from  Bab.  and  the  later  one  from 
Ahava.  As  the  distance  was  about  900  miles  (Ryle),  and  the  journey 
lasted  more  than  100  days,  the  caravan  moved  slowly. 

10.  This  verse  states  the  object  of  Ezra  and  explains  his  so- 
licitude to  have  Levites  as  well  as  priests :  to  seek  the  law  of  Yah- 
weh  and  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in  Israel  statute  and  judgment],  or 
with  (S  statutes  and  judgments,  both  being  familiar  synonyms 
for  the  law.  Esd.  has  a  different  idea: /or  Ezra  possessed  much 
knowledge,  not  to  omit  anything  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  and  of  his 
commands  to  all  Israel,  statutes  and  judgments,  the  last  two  words 
being  a  corrective  gloss. 

As  the  passage  vv. '-"  runs,  it  is  not  surprising  that  it  is  labelled  Chr. 
and  passed  by  as  unimportant;  for  it  is  overloaded  with  genealogy,  with 
specific  and  repeated  dates,  and  other  details.  But  a  close  examination 
reveals  the  fact  that  a  single  statement  runs  through  the  mass,  thus: 
(r)  In  the  reign  of  Art.  the  king  of  Pers.  Ezra  (6)  ivent  up  from  Bab. 
Now  he  was  an  accomplished  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses  which  Yahweh  the 


3o6  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

God  of  Israel  had  given.  And  the  king  granted  all  his  requests,  ace.  to 
the  [good]  hand  of  God  upo7i  him.  (lo)  For  Ezra  had  set  his  heart  upon 
following  and  executing  the  law  of  Yahweh,  and  to  teach  his  statutes  and 
judgments  in  Israel.  (8)  And  he  came  to  Jems,  in  the  sth  month  of  the  yth 
year  of  the  king;  (9")  for  he  had  departed  from  Bab.  on  the  1st  day  of  the 
1st  month. 

To  this  V. '  is  surely  an  addition,  for  the  verbs  before  and  after  are 
all  in  the  sg.  It  is  true  that  we  find  the  pi.  in  some  Vrss.,  but  they  are 
obvious  corrections.  The  material  is  easily  gathered  from  the  body  of 
the  narrative,  and  an  intr.  which  named  only  Ezra  did  not  suit  an 
editor  who  kept  ever  in  mind  a  return  from  captivity.  The  genealogy 
has  been  added  apparently  by  stages,  Esd.  having  a  briefer  one  than 
MT.,  and  the  latter  even  being  less  full  than  Ch.  The  insertion  of  this 
genealogy  made  necessary  the  repetition  of  iry  Nin  in  v. «.  Esd.  has 
gone  further  and  added  a  vb.  in  v. '.  A  comparison  with  Esd.  shows 
that  there  has  been  tampering  with  the  dates  in  v. « '-.  It  is  difficult 
to  determine  whether  "ace.  to  the  good  hand,"  etc.,  in  v. ',  is  an  ac- 
cidental repetition,  a  good  text,  or,  as  Esd.  suggests,  wrong  in  both 
cases. 

It  is  apparent  that  to  the  story  of  Ezra  there  was  an  original  and 
simple  note  of  intr.  In  this  all  em  ph.  was  laid  upon  Ezra's  mission  and 
upon  his  fitness  for  its  accomplishment.  The  material,  it  is  true,  is 
drawn  from  the  body  of  the  narrative,  but  that  is  generally  the  case  with 
introductions.  In  my  opinion,  this  original  intr.  long  preceded  the 
editing  of  the  Chr.  We  note  that  the  writer  has  chiefly  in  mind  the 
intr.  of  the  law. 

That  the  genealogy  has  been  shoved  in  is  disclosed  most  plainly  in 
(&^,  where  we  have:  and  after  these  things  in  the  reign  of  Art.  the  king 
of  Bah.,  Ezra  went  up  from  Bab.  Ezra  the  son  of  Seraiah.  .  .  .  That 
Ezra  went  up  frotn  Bab.  All  the  texts  show  efforts  to  piece  the  narra- 
tive here.  The  genealogy  may  have  been  a  marginal  note,  and  then 
the  clause  following  would  be  repeated  after  it  had  got  into  the  text. 
The  addition  may  well  be  the  work  of  the  Chr.,  but  in  his  genealogical 
table  some  names  have  dropped  from  our  text.  The  reason  for  most 
of  the  added  material  is  fairly  obvious.  The  passage  is  much  later  than 
E.,  however,  as  the  stress  is  laid  on  the  law. 

1.  N-iry]  Eapa<;B,  E^gaq^^  Esd.  has  xpoaiprj  Eapas,  ($^  dvl^Tj  E!;pa<;, 
3  Esd.  accesil  Esdras. — 5.  a'xin  jnon]  (gi-  Esd.^  tou  kplw?  tou  -rptoxou, 
Esd.^  TOU  irpuTou  lepeo)?,  (^^^  tou  •TcaTptpou,  an  adj.  in  Prov.  2y^'>  and 
representing  3n:  otherwise  it  is  found  only  in  Apocr.  H  sacerdotes  ab 
initio,  3  Esd.  primi  sacerdotes.  The  words  bring  out  the  idea  very 
well  that  Aaron  was  the  father  of  the  priestly  order. — 6.  nitj?  Nin]  om. 
(6^.  ^  adds  to  this  iv.  Bx^oXtiwc,  and  then  repeats  Et^pot?  ut6<;  x.  t.  X. 
— Tinn]  seems  sufficiently  explained  from  "inn,  "to  hasten,"   and   to 


EZRA    7-10  307 

have  the  mng.  quick,  a  sense  apph'cable  in  the  only  other  occurrences  of 
the  word,  Ps.  45'  Prov.  22='  Is.  i6^  Miiller  (^.y.  u.  EuJ''^)  compares 
Egyptian  mahira,  "capable."  (&  gives  a  variety  of  renderings:  Taxii?^, 
0^6?^,  Esd.  eucpu-^s;;  H  velox,  3  Esd.  ingeniosus. — to]  (&  oti  xst'p,  /•  e., 
T  '3,  so  V. '.  Esd.  has  in  v.'':  xat  eowxsv  aixw  6  ^aatXeCiq  S6sav,  eupdvToq 
Xiiptv  IvavTt'ov  auToO  k%\  izScvzoc  Ta  d^cwfitzTa  auToiJ,  thus  reading  lo  as 
ma*?,  vSj;  as  S>',  rnSs  as  vSx,  and  rf\rt^  as  ?n  nx:;. — 7.  ci'^n]  CI  prefixes 
dtico  correctly,  since  the  partitive  should  be  used  with  each  n.;  its  ab- 
sence before  the  last  three  nouns  in  all  texts  suggests  either  careless- 
ness of  the  Chr.  or  more  prob.  a  later  addition. — 8.  Na-ii]  ^  H  Esd  rd. 
INO''  here  and  v. '. — n^yarn]  Esd.^  SeuTspoq,  but  this  offers  very  little 
help,  unless  for  We.'s  conjecture  that  we  should  rd.  27th  year. — 9» 
is  lacking  in  <&^^. — nSynn  ^D>  Nin]  is  difficult;  (g^  runs:  ai-ub?  e6e[i.e- 
X^uas  T-?)v  dva^aaiv  dtwo,  i.  e.,  nD»,  a  reading  generally  accepted,  and  in- 
terpreted "he  began  the  journey  from  Bab."  BDB.  gives  sense  "ap- 
point "  here.  Esd.  has  l^eXGovTot;  yap  ix^,  lacking  iDv — .  .  .  ^^3]  Esd. 
xaxa  T-Jjv  SoOetaav  auxolq  euoStav  icapa  tou  xupt'ou  ex'  oeutw:  acc.  to  the 
good  journey  given  to  them  from  the  Lord  to  him,  the  last  two  words  be- 
ing added  as  a  correction  from  MT.,  and  lacking  in  ^. — 10.  pan]  (g 
ISuxev^'^,  TjTotjji.a^si'.  Esd.  reads:  6  yap  "E;;pas  [A^iapa?^]  xoXX-Jjv 
ZTCiarii^Ltiv  iceptetxev  ef?  xh  (itjSsv  •rcapaXeixstv  twv  sy.  tou  voyiou  xupfou  xal 
ex  Ttov  IvToXwv  [Tcpb?^]  xivra  xbv  'lapaigX  StaxupLaxa  xit  xpffjiaTa.  In 
part  this  is  traceable,  reading  nain  rty^n  for  133*7  pjn.  3  Esd.  shows 
further  correction  from  MT.,  reading  at  end:  et  docendo  universam 
Israel  omnem  justitiam  et  judicium. 


7"-'^  =  Esd.  8^-'*.   The  edict  of  Artaxerxes. 

Of  all  the  official  documents  in  our  books  this  one  arouses  the  great- 
est suspicion.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  Pers.  king  would  bestow 
such  immense  grants  upon  Ezra,  including  c.  $140,000  in  cash;  indeed 
it  is  impossible  that  Ezra,  whose  purpose  was  the  proper  institution  of 
the  temple  ritual,  should  need  any  such  sum.  It  is  absolutely  out  of 
the  question  that  such  enormous  powers  were  conferred  upon  a  Jew- 
ish pr.,  making  him  really  the  supreme  authority  in  the  whole  Syrian 
province,  with  power  to  impose  even  the  death  penalty.  The  decree 
is  even  inconsistent  with  itself  in  this  respect,  for  a  part  of  it  authorises 
the  Pers.  officers  to  pay  Ezra  money,  and  then  he  is  clothed  with  a 
power  that  would  have  enabled  him  to  displace  them  if  he  saw  fit. 
Moreover,  a  large  part  of  the  decree  is  flatly  at  variance  with  the  work 
of  Ezra,  which  is  described  with  more  fulness  than  any  other  event  in 
this  period.  There  is  not  a  hint  in  the  whole  story  that  this  pr.  ever 
received  as  much  as  a  kid  from  any  foreigner  whatever.  He  says 
himself  that  he  would  not  ask  even  a  guard  from  the  Pers.  king.    There 


3o8  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

is  no  hint  of  any  tremendous  sacrifices  such  as  we  should  have  heard  of 
if  the  leader  had  received  such  liberal  donations. 

Ezra  is  here  clothed  with  all  of  the  power  of  the  Pers.  king  in  the 
whole  of  Syria,  yet  he  was  unable  to  effect  a  single  divorce  except  by 
a  pathetic  appeal  to  the  people.  The  official  titles  which  he  bears  are 
humble  enough,  pr.  and  reader  of  the  law,  nothing  more.  And  those 
titles  cover  everything  that  he  actually  did  at  Jerus.  No  great  move- 
ments of  any  kind  can  be  traced  to  him  exc.  in  connection  with  the  cult 
and  with  the  law.  Even  Sta.  seems  to  accept  the  idea  that  Ezra's  law 
became  the  law  of  the  king  (BT.'^O.  There  were  two  things  for  which 
Ezra  needed  the  authorisation  of  Art.,  and  two  only:  the  permit  to 
take  a  caravan  to  Jerus.,  and  to  make  the  Torah  the  law  for  the  Jew- 
ish people.  Now  these  two  points  are  explicitly  covered  in  the  edict, 
and  if  there  were  nothing  else,  no  one  would  ever  have  questioned  the 
authenticity  of  this  decree. 

On  account  of  his  work  in  connection  with  the  temple  and  the  law, 
Ezra  is  exalted  above  every  other  character  in  this  period.  In  the 
portion  of  Esd.  which  has  come  down  to  us,  Neh.  is  not  mentioned. 
To  make  him  as  conspicuous  as  later  ages  supposed  him  to  be,  the 
historic  sources  available  to  the  Chr.  have  been  freely  worked  over. 
Evidence  of  this  contention  abounds  everywhere.  In  this  initial  c. 
of  his  story  we  have  abundant  instances.  The  havoc  which  has  been 
made  of  his  memoirs  offers  further  proof.  To  dispose  of  this  edict  as 
a  whole  by  calling  it  the  invention  of  the  Chr.,  as  Torrey  among  others 
does,  is  quite  unnecessary.  It  is  hard  to  see  why  the  Chr.  should  have 
written  in  Aram.  Torrey's  argument  that  he  does  it  to  give  colour  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  document  breaks  down  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he 
is  supposed  to  have  written  the  edict  of  Cy.  in  c.  i  in  Heb.,  and  that 
even  Torrey  admits  that  the  other  Aram,  sections  antedate  the  Chr. 

Now  if  we  dissect  this  decree,  as  Torrey  dissects  that  of  Dar,  we  may 
find  perfectly  good  authority  for  Ezra's  course.  There  is,  indeed,  a 
greater  elaboration  than  in  other  sections,  but  Ezra  was  the  hero  of  the 
age,  and  greater  glorification  was  demanded.  To  find  the  original  we 
have  first  the  easy  task  of  eliminating  vv.  -^--*.  In  this  part  there  is  so 
unusually  close  an  agreement  between  MT.  and  Esd.  as  alone  to  offer 
good  ground  for  suspicion.  This  agreement  is  best  explained  as  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  passage  is  later  than  the  rest  of  the  section.  The 
passage  in  form  consists  of  a  decree  to  the  Syrian  treasurers,  and  yet  it 
runs  into  the  decree  of  Ezra.  Vv.  "  '•  may  be  original,  but  the  officers 
whom  Ezra  was  authorised  to  appoint  were  not  civil  rulers.  The  texts 
show  uncertainty,  (S  having  "scribes"  in  place  of  "judges."  These 
officers  were  mere  assistants  to  be  appointed  to  aid  Ezra  in  his  religious 
duties,  and  such  as  we  find  working  with  him  in  large  numbers,  Ne.  8. 
The  punishments  named  in  v.  -^  were  not  to  be  imposed  by  Ezra  or  his 
assistants,  but  by  the  properly  constituted  civil  officers  in  the  satrapy. 


EZRA    7-10  309 

The  condition  described  there  had  always  held  good  in  every  part  of 
the  Pers.  empire,  so  far  as  the  law  of  the  king  is  concerned.  The  new 
feature  is  the  obligation  to  obey  the  law  of  Yahweh.  This  law  Ezra 
seems  authorised  to  impose  on  the  Jews. 

With  the  rest  of  the  decree  there  is  little  occasion  to  quarrel.  Fischer 
accepts  as  genuine  vv.  "-"•  ^-  -=•  ^',  but  this  presupposes  too  much  am- 
plification. There  may  have  been  a  little  retouching  here  and  there  to 
enlarge  the  conception  of  Ezra's  mission,  but  what  it  really  amounts 
to  is  that  Ezra  had  a  free  hand  to  beg  all  the  money  he  could  for  sacred 
purposes,  and  that  is  assuredl}'  not  extravagant  in  its  claims.  V.  -"  is 
not  quite  so  natural,  and  yet  Oriental  kings  were  often  not  averse  to 
doing  liberal  things  on  paper.  Witness  the  gold  bricks  so  freely  inter- 
changed between  the  courts  of  Egypt  and  Bab.  on  the  unimpeachable 
evidence  of  the  Tell-Amarna  letters.  Yet  the  Esd.  texts  say  that  Ezra 
may  take  from  the  royal  treasur}',  presumably  in  Bab.,  the  vessels  for 
the  house  of  God;  quite  a  different  proposition.  The  version  of  Esd. 
differs  so  much  from  the  Aram,  that  a  translation  of  the  former  is  ap- 
pended, for  while  the  detailed  variants  are  cited  in  the  notes,  the  matter 
will  be  grasped  better  by  comparing  the  Vrss.  as  a  whole.  Among  the 
differing  texts  of  Esd.  I  have  chosen  that  which  in  each  instance  seems 
to  be  best:  (11)  But  the  person  approaching  who  did  the  writing  of  King 
Art.,  he  delivered  the  writing,  which  had  come  from  King  Art.  to  Ezra  the 
pr.  and  reader  of  the  law  of  the  Lord,  of  which  the  subjoined  is  a  copy  : 

(12)  Ki7tg  Art.  to  Ezra  the  pr.  and  reader  of  the  law  of  the  Lord,  greeting. 

(13)  And  I  having  a  preference  for  benevolent  acts  have  ordered  that  those 
who  desire  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  of  their  own  election,  and  of  the  pr. 
and  Lev.  who  are  in  our  kingdom,  may  proceed  with  thee  to  Jems.  As 
many  therefore  as  are  eager,  let  them  set  forth  together,  (14)  as  seems  good 
to  me  and  to  the  seven  friends  counselling  with  me,  that  they  look  after  the 
welfare  of  Judah  aiui  Jerus.  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  Lord;  (15) 
and  to  carry  to  Jcrus.  gifts  which  I  and  my  friends  have  vowed  to  the  Lord. 
(16)  And  all  the  gold  and  silver  which  shall  be  found  in  the  province  of 
Bab.,  for  the  Lord  at  Jerus.,  with  that  wliich  is  given  by  the  nations  for 
the  temple  of  the  Lord  which  is  in  Jerus.,  (17)  shall  be  collected,  and  the 
gold  and  silver  for  bulls  and  rams  and  lambs  and  the  things  which  go  with 
them,  in  order  that  they  may  offer  sacrifices  on  the  altar  of  the  Lord  which 
is  in  Jerus.  {iS)  Arui  all  that  seems  right  to  thy  brethren  to  do  with  the  gold 
and  silver  let  it  be  done,  ace.  to  the  will  of  thy  God.  (19)  And  the  sacred 
vessels  which  are  given  thee  for  the  service  of  the  temple  of  thy  God  which 
is  in  Jerus.,  (20)  atid  the  rest  whatever  shall  come  to  thee  for  the  service  of 
the  temple  of  thy  God,  thou  shall  take  from  the  royal  treasury. 

(21)  And  I,  Art.  the  king,  give  orders  to  tlte  treasurers  of  Syria  and 
Phcenicia,  that  whatever  Ezra  the  pr.  and  reader  of  the  law  of  the  most  high 
God  demands,  shall  be  scrupulously  given  to  him,  (22)  up  to  a  hundred 
talents  of  silver,  likewise  up  to  a  hundred  cor  of  ivheat  and  a  hutuired 


3 1 0  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

boUles  of  wine.  (23)  And  ace.  to  the  law  of  God,  let  everything  be  com- 
pleted for  the  most  high  God  that  there  be  no  wrath  against  the  realm  of 
the  king  and  of  his  sons.  (24)  And  to  you  it  is  said  that  to  all  the  pr.  and 
Lev.  and  singers  and  porters  and  Neth.  and  scribes  of  the  temple,  there 
shall  be  no  tribute  nor  other  imposition,  and  no  one  shall  have  authority 
to  lay  anything  upon  them.  (25)  And  thou,  Ezra,  according  to  the  wisdom 
of  God,  appoint  judges  and  magistrates  of  those  who  know  the  law  that  they 
may  judge  in  all  Syria  and  Phxnicia;  and  all  who  do  not  know  the  law 
of  thy  God  do  thou  teach.  (26)  AM  all  as  matiy  as  shall  trangress  the  law 
[of  thy  God  and  of  the  king]  slmll  be  strictly  punished,  whether  it  be  by 
death,  or  by  torture,  or  by  fines,  or  by  banishment. 

11.  This  verse  is  Hebrew  and  is  the  Chronicler's  introduction 
to  the  letter  which  is  in  Aramaic. — Copy  of  the  letter],  cf.  4" 
5^.  The  writer  claims  to  have  an  authentic  document  before 
him. — The  scribe,  the  scribe  of  the  words  of  Yahweh's  command- 
ments]. In  place  of  "scribe,"  Esd.  in  one  place,  by  pointing 
differently,  reads  "book." 

In  this  V.  3  Esd.  has  an  interesting  plus:  but  those  approaching  who 
did  the  writing  of  King  Art.,  they  delivered  the  writing  which  had  come  from 
King  Art.  to  Ezra,  the  pr.  and  reader  of  the  law  of  the  Lord,  of  which  the 
subjoined  is  a  copy.  It  is  impossible  to  think  this  text  an  invention  of 
translators,  and  yet  it  is  rather  startling  in  its  implications;  for  it  re- 
veals plainly  a  beginning  in  medias  res.  In  other  words,  this  passage 
was  preceded  by  an  account  of  the  way  in  which  Ezra  obtained  his 
favour  from  the  king,  a  natural  part  of  the  story;  cf.  the  story  of  the 
Three  Youths,  Esd.  3,  4  and  Ne.  i,  2.  It  appears  that  Ezra  was  not 
at  the  Pers.  court  when  the  decree  was  issued,  but  that  it  was  brought 
to  him  at  the  river  Ahava  in  Bab. 

12-26.  The  letter. — 12.  God  of  heaven],  v.  1 2;  Esd.  reads 
the  Lord. — Perfect  and  so  forth]  as  ARV.  is  nonsense.  By  a 
slight  emendation  we  get  the  true  sense,  perfect  peace.  And 
now,  coming  to  the  real  business. — 13.  In  my  empire].  Ezra  is 
free  to  gather  his  caravan  from  any  part  of  the  vast  Persian 
kingdom. — 14.  The  purpose  of  Ezra's  mission,  a  mission  sup- 
ported by  the  king  and  his  seven  counsellors  {cf.  the  seven 
princes,  Est.  i"),  was  to  investigate  the  condition  of  Judah, 
but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  law  of  God  which  he  carried 
with  him;  that  is,  to  see  whether  the  law  was  enforced  or  not. 


EZRA    7-10  311 

— 15.  Silver  and  gold],  Esd.  gifts  for  the  Lord  which  I  and  my 
friends  have  vowed  for  Jerusalem].  This  implies  that  Ezra's  mis- 
sion was  in  some  part  due  to  a  vow  taken  by  the  king,  the  con- 
ditions of  which  had  been  fulfilled.  We  may  compare  the  appeal 
to  the  vow  of  Darius,  Esd.  4^^*^-.  The  expression  "vow"  is 
stronger  than  the  Aramaic  "offered." — The  God  of  Israel  whose 
dwelling-place  is  in  Jerusalem].  The  dwelling-place  is  strictly 
the  temple;  but  the  meaning  is  more  comprehensive  than  that: 
Jerusalem  was  the  place  Yahweh  had  selected  as  his  abode. 
The  statement  therefore  shows  a  distinct  Jewish  colouring. — 
16.  All  the  silver  and  gold  which  thou  shall  find  in  the  whole  prov- 
ince of  Babylon].  This  is  not  qualified  by  the  following  words, 
since  the  voluntary  gifts  of  the  people  and  priests  are  quite 
distinct.  Ezra  has  a  roving  commission  so  far  as  raising  money 
is  concerned. 

Ryle  explains  by  saying  that  the  neighbours  of  the  Jews  would  gladly 
assist  their  undertaking.  Sieg.  supposes  it  to  be  a  compulsory  tax 
which  Ezra  had  the  right  to  levy  upon  Jewish  property  in  Bab.  Seis. 
contends  that  this  money  came  from  Jews,  since  8"  names  only  king, 
counsellors,  princes,  and  all  Israel  as  contributors.  Berth,  thinks  this 
gift  came  from  foreigners,  and  if  exactness  is  insisted  upon,  we  might 
identify  this  "find"  with  the  gift  of  the  princes,  though  they  are  not 
mentioned  here.  In  spite  of  his  antipathy  to  aliens  in  Judah,  Ezra 
might  be  willing  to  receive  money  from  them.  But  all  suggestions  to 
explain  the  money  overlook  the  troublesome  word  "find,"  which  re- 
curs, by  the  way,  in  S'^^,  and  is  supported  by  all  texts  and  Vrss.  In 
Esd.  we  might  render:  all  the  gold  afid  silver  belonging  to  the  Lord  of 
Jerus.  which  can  be  found  in  the  province  of  Bab.  From  this  we  get  an 
entirely  new  idea.  The  temple  had  been  repeatedly  plundered  by  As. 
and  Bab.  kings,  and  the  booty  carried  ultimately  to  temples  and  palaces 
in  Bab.  Now  Ezra  is  authorised  to  take  back  all  of  that  spoil  which 
he  can  find.  This  makes  the  passage  intelligible,  at  all  events,  and 
makes  good  sense.  If  that  is  the  right  conception  it  speaks  for  the 
authenticity  of  the  decree. 

For  the  house  of  God  who  [or  which]  is  in  Jerusalem],  In  Aramaic 
it  is  not  possible  to  tell  whether  the  relative  stands  for  "house" 
or  "God";  d^"^  If  have  former,  ^  latter,  for  in  Greek  and  Latin 
the  distinction  must  be  made,  cf.  i\ — 17.   That  thou  may st  faith- 


312  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

fully  buy  with  the  money],  showing  that  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  collected  was  the  proper  institution  of  the  cultus. — Bul- 
locks, rams,  lambs],  the  same  animals  (lacking  the  goats)  named 
as  offered  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  6^'. — Aiid  their  meat 
ofcrings  and  their  drink  oferings],  that  is,  those  which  prop- 
erly accompanied  the  animal  sacrifices,  v.  Nu.  15'"'°.  Esd.  has 
merely:  and  those  things  which  accompany  them. — 18.  But  all 
the  money  would  not  be  required  for  sacrifices,  therefore  the 
general  statement  is  made  that  Ezra  and  his  brethren  (the 
priests)  may  use  the  balance  of  the  money  as  may  seem  to  them 
good;  but  that  it  was  only  to  be  used  for  sacred  purposes  is 
shown  by  the  limitation,  according  to  the  pleasure  of  your  God]. — 
19.  And  the  vessels  which  are  given  thee  for  the  service  of  the  house 
of  thy  God].  These  are  doubtless  the  same  as  those  enumerated 
in  8-^-",  and  are  gifts  of  the  king,  members  of  his  court,  and 
Israelites.  They  are  not  vessels  that  had  previously  been  in 
the  temple  and  which  had  been  already  returned,  cf.  i^^-  5'^ 
6^  The  direction  about  these  vessels  is  that  they  shall  be 
placed  in  the  temple  as  votive  memorials. — 20.  Provision  is 
now  made  to  cover  any  expenditure  not  provided  in  the  above 
grant  by  allowing  the  priest  to  draw  upon  the  royal  treasury  to 
meet  any  requirement  for  the  temple  which  might  fall  upon 
him. — 21.  The  king  then  limits  this  permission  by  decreeing 
that  all  the  treasurers  in  the  Syrian  province  shall  honour  the 
requisitions  of  Ezra,  22,  up  to  a  hundred  talents  of  silver,  a 
hundred  cor  of  wheat,  a  hundred  bottles  of  wine  and  of  oil,  and 
an  unlimited  supply  of  salt:  salt  which  is  not  written,  or  re- 
stricted. The  cor  is  the  same  as  homer  =  393.9  litres.  The  oil 
and  salt  are  not  mentioned  in  Esd.  According  to  Meyer's 
computation  the  silver  would  be  worth  about  $140,000,  a  much 
larger  sum  than  we  should  expect.  Meyer  adds,  ''but  the 
amount  appears  to  me  unsuspicious  in  view  of  the  rich  gifts  of 
the  king  and  his  magnates  which  Ezra  brought  with  him."  It 
is  difficult  to  share  this  view;  v.  on  8^". — 23.  Everything  which  is 
by  the  command  of  the  God  of  heaven  shall  be  correctly  executed  for 
the  house  of  the  God  of  heaven].  This  is  the  most  sweeping  of 
all  the  provisions.     Ezra  is  assumed  to  have  the  law  as  the  basis 


EZRA    7-10  313 

of  his  plea  for  assistance.  That  law  showed  in  detail  what 
God  demanded  in  the  service  at  his  temple  in  Jerusalem.  That 
service  was  not  yet  rendered  according  to  this  law,  and  with 
such  a  condition  God  was  not  well  pleased. — Ezra  had  shrewdly 
appealed  to  the  king's  fears  and  so  the  decree  continues:  why 
should  there  be  wrath  upon  the  empire  of  the  king  and  his  sons  ?] 
The  displeasure  of  God,  which  might  fall  upon  the  Persian  em- 
pire, may  be  averted  by  establishing  the  rightful  cult  at  Jeru- 
salem. That  kind  of  an  appeal  would  be  the  most  effective  and 
adds  probability  to  the  liberal  terms  of  the  edict,  cf.  610*. — 24. 
To  you  it  is  directed].  The  antecedent  can  only  be  the  treas- 
urers named  in  v.  2'. 

As  the  decree  was  issued  to  Ezra  (v.  "2)  and  in  view  of  the  material 
intervening  between  v.  ^i  and  v.  ■*,  the  construction  makes  the  passage 
suspicious,  esp.  the  use  of  the  second  p.,  as  if  the  decree  were  directed 
to  the  treasurers  named  in  v.  -K  We  find  here  a  supposedly  "exhaustive 
list  of  the  temple  officials:  pr.  Lev.  singers,  porters,  Neth.  and  ser- 
vants of  the  house  of  God.  This  agrees  with  the  lists  of  c.  2  exc.  for 
the  last-named,  corresponding  to  which  we  find  "servants  of  Solomon." 
These  may  be  identical,  but  "servants"  in  our  passage  has  a  more 
technical  mng.  than  Berth,  gives:  whoever  besides  has  to  oversee  the  ser- 
vice at  the  temple.  Our  text  simply  asserts  that  it  shall  be  unlawful 
to  impose  any  kind  of  tax  upon  the  temple  officers;  but  (S  adds  to  this 
a  provision  that  no  kind  of  [public]  service  may  be  exacted  of  them. 

25.  Atid  thou,  Ezra].  The  name  recurs  because  a  passage, 
w.  ^1  "f-,  had  been  addressed  to  others. — According  to  the  wisdom 
of  thy  God  which  is  in  thy  hand],  does  not  mean,  according  to 
the  priests'  inspired  discretion,  as  Esd.  implies,  but  according 
to  the  written  law-book  which  he  carries  and  to  which  he  must 
conform,  cf.  v.";  "wisdom"  is  often  in  late  literature  used  as  a 
synonym  for  "law."  The  government  established  by  Ezra  was 
therefore  to  be  hierarchical. — Appoint  judges  and  magistrates]. 
(^  better  scribes  and  judges,  as  they  were  the  administrators  of 
the  religious  law. — To  all  the  people  who  are  beyond  the  River]  is 
qualified  by  the  following:  i.  e.,  to  all  who  observe  the  law  of  thy 
God],  so  that  Ezra's  jurisdiction  is  confined  to  Jews  in  the  Syrian 
province. — And  whoever  does  not  observe  [the  law]  you  shall  hi- 


314  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

struct].  This  does  not  open  the  way  to  a  propaganda  among  the 
non- Jewish  residents,  but  means  that  Ezra  and  others  shall 
teach  the  law  to  those  Jews  who  now  do  not  know  or  follow  it. 
— 26.  And  every  one  who  does  not  obey  ike  law  of  thy  God  and  the 
law  of  the  king[.  Here  is  the  beginning  of  the  double  law  under 
which  the  Jews  have  lived  to  this  day,  and  which  causes  so  much 
confusion  and  perplexity  {cf.  Jn.  19^.  The  officers  appointed 
by  Ezra  were  authorised  to  administer  both  the  religious  and 
the  civil  law.  The  various  punishments  permitted  are  death, 
banishment,  imposition  of  fines,  and  imprisonment.  These  are 
comprehensive  enough  for  all  purposes. — This  brings  us  to  the 
end  of  the  decree  and  of  the  Aramaic  sections  of  the  book  of 
Ezra. 

11.  The  Heb.  is  clear  and  in  good  order.  Esd.  has  a  different  text; 
it  runs:  Tcpoaxeadvxoi;  [Be  tou  ypa^iivToc;]'""- ^  icpoaTaytJ.a'uoq'""- '^  wapi 
'Apxa^epsou  lou  ^aatX^ws  icpb?  "Eapav  tov  Ispsa  /.al  avaYvwaxirjv  xou  v6[xou 
xupt'ou  ou  saxtv  avxtypacpov  xb  uxoxetyievov.  This  is  nonsense  as  it  stands, 
because  a  clause  has  dropped  out  after  xpoa-raytxtzTOs.  The  deficit  is 
found  in  3  Esd.:  accidenlcs  aiitem,  qui  scrihebant  scripta  Artaxerxis 
regis,  tradideriint  script  urn,  quod  ohvencrai  ab  Artaxerxe  rege  ad  Esdram 
sacerdotcm  et  lectorem  legis  Domini,  cujus  exemplum  siibjectum  est. 
Doubtless  (S  is  right  in  the  use  of  the  sg. — iScn]  om.  (S^^. — ncDJ  <& 
^i^Xfou  =  nsD,  Esd.  dvayvciatTiv  =  N^p.  The  title  "scribe"  is  never 
found  in  Esd.  (save  for  the  gl.  in  9"^^).  "Reader"  is  doubtless  the 
earlier  term.  For  SNitr'  .  .  •>^3■l]  Esd.  shows  only  nini  nnin,  agreeing 
essentially  with  title  in  v.  i^. — 12.  xjhd  om.  <S^^. — xm]  is  Pers.  dadh 
(Andreas,  in  Mar.^'). — nj>'Di  -iinj]  is  a  much-disputed  phrase.  In  (&  we 
find:  TExiXeaTo  >.6yo<;  xal  %  <lx6x.ptati;^^,  let  the  word  and  the  answer  be 
performed;  in  ^  to  the  above  is  added:  %<x\  vijv  =  njysi;  Esd.  xat'petv; 
3  Esd.  salutem;  Esd.  begins  v. ":  xal  to:  ^tXivOpuxa  eyu  xpfva?,  which 
is  not  represented  in  the  Aram,  i-dj  would  correspond  to  tsT^XsaTO, 
though  Berth,  says  Gk.  did  not  understand  this  word;  but  the  rest,  at 
all  events,  is  not  discoverable.  Torrey  thinks  chi^f  has  fallen  out  after 
K^Tiv  (Comp.^^),  a  correction  supported  by  Esd.  and  now  frequently 
adopted.  But  if  we  rely  on  the  Vrss.  we  must  suppose  more  lost  than 
a  single  word. — nj>'j]  v.  4". — 13.  '•niaSDaj  Esd.^  xocl  xwvSe  ev  t^  ri\ieiipif 
pafftXsfqt. — SxTi'i]  Esd.  Twv  'louSafwv,  a  reading  overlooked  by  Kost. — 
14.  n  S^iI-Sd]  wanting  in  (S^^,  xaG'  o-zi^. — "nisp]  cf.  t3>?%  Sachau,<=';  it 
corresponds  to  Heb.  yy  and  has  the  same  mng. — 15.  nSa-ri'?]  (g^A  ^i^ 
olxov  xuptou,  i.  e.,  So^n.  ^  has  a  dup. :  dtxeveyxsiv  dq  x.  t.  X. — njnn] 
Esd.  T]u?(i[ji,75v  =  Heb.  -nj  not  found  in  B.  Aram. — 16.  noB'nn]  Esd.  8 


EZRA    7-10  315 

eav  eijpeOfj  (n^Pttri  cf.  6-)  Iv  xyj  X«P<?  ^^s  B.  ty  xupt'cp  lep.  Kupt'tp  is  best 
interpreted  as  a  dative  of  possession,  /.  e.,  belonging  to  the  Lord  of 
Jems. — 16.  K^jnoi]  lacking  in  Esd.,  which  knows  of  no  contribution 
from  the  pr.;  this  agrees  with  8"  and  is  prob.  right. — |''3ijnD  .  .  .  ojr] 
Esd.  a6v  T(p  S£Sti)pir)[i,ev<p  Cixb  toG  sOvoui;,  referring  to  Bab. — 17.  .  .  .  '?3 
nji2]  (gBA  ^gjj  ^gjy  xpooTCopsu 6[JLS vo V,  TouTov  e'uo{[JLti)';  evxa^ov  ev  ^t^X^w  tou- 
T(j);  ^  adds  to  this  a  lit.  rendering  of  the  Aram.;  H  /iSere  accipe  et 
stiidiose  eme  de  hoc  pecunia;  Esd.  auvT]%G^vat  to  ts  xP'J^'O'^  '^c^  dtpyuptov; 
so  3  Esd.  ui  colligatur  hoc  aunim  et  argcntiim.  01  looks  like  a  bad  cor- 
ruption: xav  =  Sa,  TupoaTC.  =  aip  (':'3p),  xoOtov  =  nj-i,  £irot[ji.Ms  =  njicdn, 
evxa^ov  =  Njpn  (xip),  gt^Xtw  =  n'sdd  (nsD).  MT.  is  poorly  supported, 
but  the  words  are  not  of  great  moment. — 19.  jnS-j]  only  here  as  subst., 
but  cf.  V.  "*.  (5  XstToupYt'av.  Esd.  uses  a  less  technical  word,  xP^fav, 
in  Heb.  niiaj;. — aSirn]  (g  xapaoo^.  The  word  is  lacking  in  Esd.^A^  as 
well  as  the  preceding  and  following,  so  that  we  have  merely  the  temple 
of  thy  God  ivhich  is  in  Jems.  Sieg.  Berth.  BDB.  render  "deliver  in 
full  number."  That  implies  a  certain  distrust  of  Ezra,  and  would  be 
superfluous  in  any  case.  Ges.^  renders  "restore,"  implying,  wrongly 
I  think,  that  these  vessels  had  previously  been  taken  from  the  temple. 
Torrey  renders  "deliver  in  the  presence  of."  We  should  prob.  assign 
a  weakened  sense,  "lay  up,"  as  Esd.''  eTJasts- — ^^'^^f'*''  hSn]  (5  h  'lep. 
Guthe  emends  "no  n  Sn^itm  nSx  to  correspond  to  v.  ".  The  most 
elaborate  text  is  Esd.^:  tic,  x-rjv  xpst'av  toO  cepoCi  loQ  Oeou  aou  toO  Iv  'lep. 
Oi^tjet?  evavTiov  toO  OeoCi  Tapa^QX. — 20.  mncn]  f  All  Gk.  texts  have  xpst'av 
=  inSfl,  V. '9.— 22.  niT'D  pna]  lacking  in  (&^  and  Esd.:  a  iXat'ou  PaSwv 
lxaT6v;  ^  i'koLiou  I'd)?  PaTwv  IxotTov.  The  unusual  order  and  the  witness 
of  <S  make  the  mention  of  the  oil  suspicious. — 3  no  N''?-n]  means  with- 
out prescription,  i.  e.,  ace.  to  requirement. — 23.  aj'a-p]  05  sv  yvwsjit); 
but  MT.  shows  no  need  of  correction. — 24.  ddS]  is  a  manifest  He- 
braism; Mar.  corrects  to  ]3S;  similarly  we  should  have  j.t''?!'  at  end 
of  V. — I'ljJiinD]  (5  i^ybtpi^'zctt.^^,  yvwptXotxsv^,  Xdyexat'^^''-.  The  idiom 
is  explained  in  Kautzsch,  §  '«.  The  Gk.  variants  prob.  represent  only 
different  attempts  to  make  intelligible  a  circumlocutory  expression. — 
xnnr]  Heb.  amc'cn,  2",  v.  Kautzsch,  §  ^^.  Zimmern  connects  with 
Bab.  zammare  {v.  Haupt's  note  in  Guthe,"). — ••nSs]  (v.  ]nhs,  v.^o^)  (g 
XetToupYoIc;  =  Heb.  nTC";  Esd.  ■Kpoi-^iKcxziY.oXi^^,  Ypa[ji[ji.aTtxoti;^.  The  word 
must  have  some  technical  sense,  but  just  what  it  is  impossible  to 
say.  (&  offers  a  variety  of  renderings  of  v.  ^.  ^  alone  agrees  with 
MT.  ^A  has:  (j>6po<;  y.i)  esxti)  ao!  ouy.  I^ouataasn;  xaxaSouXouaSott  ocu-zodt;. 
The  first  part  is  easily  derivable  from  MT.  iVa  =  oux.,  iSm  =  eaxw  cot, 
i.  €.,  nin.  With  this  reading  Esd.  in  part  agrees:  [JLY)Se[A(a  9opoXoYfa 
IJLTjSe  SXXyj  £TCtpouX9)  ylvf]-zai,  [L-qoivx  s'xstv  l^ouat'av  eictpaXetv  xouxot?. — 
25.  njNi]  Masora  magna  in  B  diserlis  verbis  ait.  In  libris  Danielis 
et  Esdrce  ubique  nnjs  scripium  est,  uno  loco  njN  excepto  (Str.).  Doubt- 
less the  text  preserves  a  mere  scribal  error. — ^^'3  n]  lacking  in  Esd. — 


3l6  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

pMB']  yp(Xit.[L<2ztlq^^  (?'iod),  xptxds^^^-.  It  is  hard  to  say  whether  ^  is 
right  or  merely  trying  to  avoid  a  tautolog>',  since  the  two  Aram,  words 
both  mean  judges  and  cannot  be  distinguished.  In  Dt.  i6'»  we  find 
Dnas'i  D''aDw',  ($  xpixccq  ■/..  ypajJLtiaToeiaaYwyeli;.  The  officers  were  ec- 
clesiastical, not  civil. — \"n]  (5  v6[j.ov^a  ^^'^■,  ^  v6[i.nioc;  with  Torrcy  rd. 
m. — lu*"''!^-'^]  Guthe  corrects  to  njj;  inn,  @^  YvwpistTe  ajT«.  Guthe  ap- 
pears not  to  have  noted  this  reading,  but  his  emendation  has  little 
support. — 26.  ^C'•^'^]  (S  xoctSeiav^'^,  sxti^wcat  auxbv  i^  •icatSeOffat^;  Esd. 
(ZTtiJLt?^,  disfranchisement,  Tt;ji.up{(j:^^,  torture,  so  3  Esd.  cruciatii.  ens' 
means  roo/,  so  the  lexicographers  argue  uprooting,  banishment,  ignoring 
the  big  gaps  in  the  chain  of  reasoning.  Sieg.,  perhaps  taking  a  hint 
from  Ges.^,  refers  to  Ps.  52",  where  Pi.  is  rendered  "uproot,"  but  we 
should  rd.  with  C5,  ^^nr,  "thy  root."  The  Gk.  translators  did  not 
know  what  the  word  meant,  and  we  are  no  better  off  to-day;  "excom- 
munication" would  be  the  most  natural  mng. — vddj  ts'jj:]  CS  l,-q[j.i(xv 
^(ou^^,  "loss  of  life";  t^Tjixiwaat  to:  uxapxovxa^,  Esd.  ap'fupita'Q-q.  The 
punishment  is  the  imposition  of  fines. — jmON]  (5  xapdtSoatv^,  SiafAa*, 
9uXa*A"f)v  sYxXstaat^;  Esd.  axaycoY^^^,  SeofAEijaott^. 

7"  '•  =  Esd.  8'^"".    Ezra's  thanksgiving. 

As  usually  interpreted  the  leader  gives  thanks  for  the  decree  of  Art., 
but  it  is  really  much  more  than  that.  The  true  connection  has  been 
destroyed  by  the  editorial  work  of  the  Chr.  Doubtless  this  was  origi- 
nally not  an  appendix  to  a  royal  decree,  but  the  conclusion  of  Ezra's  own 
story  of  his  successful  plea  to  the  king.  The  brief  passage  expresses 
thanksgiving  in  a  few  words  and  then  proceeds  to  action,  describing 
how  the  pr.  began  to  collect  leaders  to  take  part  in  his  expedition.  The 
passage  is  directly  continued  in  8'=,  the  Chr.  having  interjected  one  of 
the  lists  in  which  he  so  much  delighted.  This  is  the  beginning  of  the 
fragments  of  E. 

27.  One  Greek  ms.  in  Esd.  begins:  Afid  Ezra  the  scribe  said. 
MT.  begins:  who  has  thus  put  it  into  the  heart  of  the  king],  or 
better  into  my  heart.  This  refers  not  to  the  decree,  which  was 
no  part  of  E.,  but,  if  MT.  is  right,  to  the  favourable  disposition 
already  described  by  Ezra  in  a  lost  section  of  his  story.  The 
good  office  of  Artaxerxes  is  due  to  the  moving  of  God's  spirit 
in  his  heart.  But  Esd.^  has  my  heart,  doubtless  the  original  read- 
ing. Of  the  king  was  added  to  make  a  closer  connection  with 
the  decree.  Ezra  expresses  gratitude  first  that  he  was  moved 
to  do  something  for  the  temple,  and  then  that  he  had  received 


EZRA    7-10  317 

favour  from  the  king. — To  glorify  the  house  of  Yahwch]  by  estab- 
lishing the  full  system  of  sacrifices.  "Glorify"  is  a  favourite 
word  of  Is."  44"^*  49''  55-''  6o^-  '•  '^-  ^'  61^  These  words  express 
the  great  purpose  of  Ezra's  mission,  which  was  concerned  with 
the  temple  rather  than  the  law. — 28.  The  second  ground  for 
praising  God  is:  he  extended  mercy  to  me  before  the  king  and  his 
counsellors  and  his  officers]  as  we  should  probably  read  like  8^^ 
All  the  mighty  officers  of  the  king  is  in  MT.,  but  as  the  last  named 
were  the  least  important,  ^nighty  is  out  of  place,  and  the  repeti- 
tion of  king  is  awkward. — As  the  good  hand  of  Yahweh  my  God 
was  upon  me].  "Good"  is  inserted  from  (S.  Esd.  reads:  ac- 
cording to  the  support  of  Yahweh  my  God.  The  substance  is  the 
same.  All  of  his  success  is  ascribed  to  the  loving  kindness  of 
God. — And  I  gathered  leaders  [i.  e.,  heads  of  fathers,  Esd.  men] 
from  Israel],  that  is,  of  course,  from  the  race,  not  the  land.  Each 
leader  would  have  a  number  of  his  clan  associated  with  him. 
Having  obtained  a  grant  from  the  king,  Ezra  proceeds  at  once 
to  gather  a  company  from  the  exiles  who  are  ready  to  take  part 
in  his  expedition.  His  narrative  is  now  interrupted  by  a  list 
of  the  names  of  those  who  went  up  with  him.  On  these  vv.  v. 
also  Intr.  §  "  (». 

27.  Esd.A  begins:  x,al  eksv  'Ei^paq  6  ■^ga.'^^a.izuq  (so  3  Esd.).  Very- 
little  attention  has  been  paid  to  this  reading.  Guthe,  Sieg.  B.-Rys. 
Seis.  do  not  refer  to  it.  Berth,  quotes  it  without  a  word  of  comment, 
but  does  not  note  that  it  is  found  only  in  ^  and  3  Esd.  Were  we  to 
hold  that  this  is  the  true  beginning  of  E.,  we  should  surely  regard  this 
as  an  authentic  note  bj'  the  compiler,  for  Ezra's  name  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  genuine  memoirs.  The  abruptness  is  explained  by  comparing 
6^  but  it  is  really  due  to  the  Chr.'s  omission  of  the  introductory  part  of 
E.  The  passage  serves  its  purpose  here,  but  is  poorly  supported,  and 
shows  only  a  marginal  note  which  was  found  in  some  texts,  but  not  in 
all.  It  did  not  come  from  the  Chr.,  but  was  a  later  editor's  note  and 
so  did  not  find  a  place  in  all  texts. — imi3N]  lacking  in  Esd.^^;  zaxipuv 
jAoyA  =  ipuN,  a  better  reading. — nsra]  Esd.  Tauta,  prob.  a  free  render- 
ing.— "I'l'Dn  3S3]  Esd.  zlc,  T-J)v  >to(p8t«v  \xo\)  xoO  PotatXiwc;.  The  last  two 
words  are  a  corrective  addition. — nin^2]  om.  (S^^,  while  Esd.  curiously 
reads  aixoO. — 28.  non  nan]  is  a  peculiar  combination,  but  recurs  in  9'; 
Esd.  stftxYjasv,  prob.  mn  for  ^D^.— ■':d'?]  (&  iv  ocpOaXpioTs  =  'J'PJ.  Esd. 
SvGtvTt.  Prob.  a  case  of  an  obscure  word  rd.  in  two  different  ways. — 
lajn  .  .  .  S:h\\.    The  change  of  construction  and  its  peculiar  character 


3l8  EZRA-NEHEMTAH 

raise  suspicions.  (S  reads:  •rcavTO)v  x.  apxovxwv  t.  p.  t.  Itc-opiasvojv^A 
[Suvaxwv^].  Esd.  has  a  different  text  for  the  whole :  paatXsw?  xal  xivxwv 
iwv  9t>vwv  auTou  xal  twv  [AeytaTiivwv  aO-uoO.  It  is  likely  that  the  original 
was  the  same  as  8",  and  is  here  awkwardly  amplified. — ih'^n]  on  basis 
of  (§  Guthe  adds  "jvion,  cf.  7^.  Esd.  has  a  simpler  text:  eu6apa-fj<;  sfs- 
v6|x-r5v  xotTa  ttJv  dvTfXiQitv  xupfou  Beou  [jlou. — DTNi]  Esd.  avSpo(s]=  O'lf'X; 
^  apxovTa?  =  D'-i::'  in  v. ».  This  is  another  case  of  an  obscure  word; 
cir-xt  may  be  a  correction  from  S'. 

8'-'^  =  Esd.  8'^"'^''.  The  list  of  the  leaders  of  Ezra's  com- 
pany.— 1.  Heads  of  the  fathers]  v.  s.  on  i^ — And  their  genealogy], 
read  with  Esd.  companies. — In  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  the  king]. 
These  words  show  that  this  list  was  not  originally  composed 
for  this  place,  or  the  date  would  be  quite  superfluous  after  c.  7; 
still  less  would  it  be  necessary  in  E.  The  separation  of  "with 
me"  from  "from  Babylonia"  indicates  that  the  date  was  not 
originally  in  the  text.  The  Chronicler  evidently  found  the  list 
ready  to  his  hand.  "With  me"  is  an  editorial  note  to  lend 
plausibility  to  the  insertion  in  the  body  of  the  memoirs. 

2.  Phineas,  a  grandson  of  Aaron,  and  Ithamar,  a  son,  are  named  as 
heads  of  priestly  clans  {v.  Kue.  AbltJ'^").  Daniel  and  Hattush  are 
mentioned  among  the  pr.  in  Ne.  10=^ '-.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether 
David  here  means  the  famous  son  of  Jesse,  though  Hattush  is  given 
as  of  Davidic  descent  in  i  Ch.  3-. — 3.  Here  begins  a  list  of  twelve  names 

of  heads  of  houses  all  originally  with  a  formula :  of  the  sons  of , 

the  sofi  of ,  and  with  him  were males.    There  are  some  places 

in  which  the  text  has  been  corrupted  and  thus  the  formula  is  marred. 
Of  these  names  eight  recur  among  "the  heads  of  the  people"  in  Ne. 
lo""-,  identifying  Adonikam  and  Adoniah,  i.  e.,  all  except  Shekaniah, 
Shephatiah,  Joab,  and  Shelomith.  In  the  list  of  Ezr.  2  we  find  ten 
of  these  names,  /.  e.,  all  exc.  Shekaniah  and  Shelomith.  The  text  is 
therefore  very  doubtful  and  the  name  Shekaniah  is  certainly  wrong. 
Shekaniah  is  a  priestly  name  in  our  books,  Ne.  3"  10=  la^-  '^  CS  has 
Zattu,  a  name  found  in  both  Ne.  10  and  Ezr.  2,  and  that  is  prob. 
right.  Shelomith  is  a  Levitical  name  found  often  in  Ch.,  and  does  not 
belong  here  as  head  of  a  clan.  Esd.  supplies  the  true  text:  of  the  sons 
of  Bani,  Shelomith  the  son  of  Josephiah.  Bani  is  found  in  both  parallel 
lists.  It  is  not  without  interest  to  note  that  the  first  ten  names  in  Ne. 
agree  with  ten  in  our  list,  and  that  with  two  exceptions  (Arach,  v.  % 
Zaccai,  v. ')  they  agree  with  the  first  twelve  in  Ezr.  2.  B.-Rys.  argues 
that  the  twelve  heads  of  fathers  are  due  to  the  theory  that  the  re- 
stored Israel  was  to  be  made  up  from  the  twelve  tribes. — 13.  And  of 
the  sons  of  Adonikam  the  last].    What  the  last  means  is  quite  un- 


EZRA    7-10  319 

known.  Something  is  apparently  lacking.  As  we  rd.  of  the  sons  of 
Adonikam  .  .  .  and  these  are  their  names,  it  is  clear  that  there  must  have 
been  some  statement  about  these  sons,  for  the  last  clause  would  not 
be  required  otherwise.  Something  like  "there  were  three  brothers" 
would  properly  fill  up  the  gap.  It  may  be  that  we  should  render: 
"and  of  the  sons  of  Adonikam  there  were  others,  and  these  are  their 
names."  It  is  noteworthy  that  here  alone  we  find  three  names  instead 
of  one,  and  that  here  alone  the  names  of  the  fathers  are  lacking.  The 
Vrss.  do  not  agree  with  our  text,  Esd.^  and  H  having:  Eliphalet  the  son 
of  Jeuel  and  Shemaiah. — 14.  Instead  of  Uthai  and  Zabbud  we  should 
rd.  Uthai  the  son  of  Zabbud,  or  Zacchur,  as  some  texts  have.  The 
numbers  vary  somewhat  in  the  different  texts. 

1.  ■'a'N-i]  d^  adds  oVxwv  as  Ex.  6"  et  pass.,  but  of.  1^. — ae'ninm] 
Hithp.  inf.  with  sf.  Ges.^ ".  The  word  is  hard  to  render  here.  Esd.  has 
xal  Ta?  t'-sptSapxta?  (+  aOToQ^);  (&^^  01  63if)Yot  connected  with  cSyn, 
the  gtiides  going  up  with  me;  [isptSapxta?  recurs  in  1^  =  2  Ch.  35^  for 
nuSs,  in  i"  =  2  Ch.  35'^,  hijiVdd;  we  should  rd.  here  DmjSflm  =  and 
their  divisions  [or  companies]. — Saan]  (S^^  lack  D  and  rd.  king  of  Bab. 
The  date  is  a  late  insertion.  Esd.  transposes :  went  up  with  me  from  Bab., 
though  this  does  not  presuppose  a  different  text. — ■'oy]  is  found  in  all 
the  texts.  It  was  doubtless  added  by  the  Chr.  to  make  the  list  fit  into 
its  context. — n^jja*  ^jao].  The  expected  name  following  does  not  ap- 
pear. In  V.  5  this  name  is  repeated,  but  still  with  a  name  lacking.  Esd. 
omits  the  name  in  v. ',  and  C5^  omits  v.  ^  altogether.  We  should  om. 
the  name  here  and  supply  a  name  in  v.  ^.  Since  in  i  Ch.  3-2  Hattush 
is  the  grandson  of  Shekaniah,  we  might  rd.  nijots'  p  cian. — 5.  After 
(8*  Esd.  ix  Twv  uiwv  ZaGo-^t;  Et£xo^''«?  TsOi^Xou  (so  3  Esd.),  rd.  Ninr  ij3D 
SNnn^-p  nij3!r. — onDtS  cn^-in]  puzzled  the  ancients,  but  the  real  mng. 
is  counting  only  the  males;  further  on  it  is  deemed  sufficient  to  repeat 
only  "males,"  which  in  Esd.  is  always  avSpeq. — 6.  13>']  should  cer- 
tainly be  a  n.  p.,  but  it  is  peculiar  certainly.  <JS»  offers  QPtj6^,  Q^-q^, 
AyLtvaSa^i-  (=  nap  jn^);  Esd.  O^f^-qy^,  Q^-q^^,  A[icvSa^i-.  On  the  whole, 
laij;  is  best  supported  and  may  be  an  abbreviated  form,  as  there  are 
numerous  n.  p.  with  nay  as  the  initial  element. — 10.  A  name  is  evi- 
dently lacking,  as  Esd.  offers  Ix  twv  ulwv  Bavta:<;  SaXstpKbG  Iwaaiptou^*. 
C5*  has  a  similar  text.  In  Esd.^  the  first  two  names  are  transposed. 
Rd.  . . .  ''J3  ■'jam.  In  i  Ch.  26"  in>j;tr>  is  the  great-grandfather  of  a  Shelo- 
mith.  There  is  a  suspicious  phonic  resemblance  to  inicov,  here  named 
as  father  of  Shelomith. — 11.  In  05^  Esd.  the  names  are  differentiated; 
correct  with  Guthe  to  .  .  .  ipj  -.j^a,  v.  on  lo^^, — (gBA  h^s  78,  MT.  28, 
i.  €.,  D''jjac  for  oniry. — 12.  ppn]  the  little  one,  cf.  "James  the  less," 
Mk.  IS";  the  name  is  attested  by  (5  B  Esd. — <S^  has  120  for  no. — 13. 
QijinN  "unintelligible"  (Berth.);  Seis.  says  it  has  a  distinguishing  sig- 
nificance in  view  of  "the  sons  of  Adonikam,"  2",  but  other  names  are 


320  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

repeated  without  marks  of  distinction.  The  "other"  of  2"  is  supposed 
to  distinguish  names  in  the  same  list.  05  renders  'iax<xzoi,  IS  qui  crant 
novissimi,  3  Esd.  ipsis  postremis.  The  text  is  well  supported;  but,  if 
correct,  is  a  mystery. — 14.  nun]  om.  (6^;  text  is  wrong,  as  icy,  the 
best  reading,  indicates  but  one  name.  Esd.  has:  Outou  'loiraxdXxou^, 
Ou6l  6  ToG  'laTotXx.oijpou'^;  ^  agrees  with  MT.  Guthe  suggests  2"in  as 
the  first  part  of  this  name,  after  which  we  should  expect  the  name  of 
a  place.  But  elsw.  in  this  list  we  have  the  name  of  the  father,  not 
of  the  place  of  residence,  and  following  the  easiest  way  we  may  rd. 
ni3t-ja  Tiij.'.  But  'Icztx-AiCk-f-w  may  be  T''^n  ho^-n,  "I  have  spread  out 
unto  thee."  Qr.  substitutes  iidi  and  the  Vrss.  vary  greatly:  Ztz^ouB*, 
Zaxzoup'-,  Zachiir  B.    The  whole  v.  is  lacking  in  3  Esd. 

8'5-3°  =  Esd.  8'*'"^^.    The  assembly  at  the  river  Ahava. 

Here  Ezra  collects  his  company.  During  a  three  days'  encampment 
it  is  discovered  that  no  Lev.  have  joined  the  expedition.  Ezra  de- 
spatches messengers  who  return  with  a  suitable  supply  of  temple  ser- 
vants. The  company  fasts  and  prays  for  a  safe  journey,  Ezra  being 
ashamed  to  ask  a  guard  because  he  has  assured  the  king  that  Yahweh 
would  adequately  protect  those  who  sought  him.  This  section  is  from 
E.  and  has  suffered  chiefly  by  addition  of  vv.  "  f-  3o_ 

15.  And  I  assembled  them].  The  antecedent  is  heads  or  chiefs, 
7^8,  not  those  named  in  the  hst  (w.  ^-")  interpolated  by  the 
Chronicler.  In  7^^  the  reference  is  to  collecting  the  people  to 
form  a  caravan;  here  it  is  to  the  assembling  of  the  company  at  a 
particular  place  in  preparation  for  departure. — The  river  which 
comes  into  Ahava].  With  Esd.  we  must  read:  the  river  which  is 
called  Ahava;  for  in  vv.  ^i-  31  we  find  "the  river  Ahava,"  this 
being  the  name  of  a  river  not  of  a  place  (so  Ewald,  Hist,  v,"^^) ; 
Winckler  identifies  it  with  Hables-suk,  which  enters  the  Tigris 
near  Seleucia.  But  he  considers  it  not  a  canal  of  water,  but  a 
trade  route  {Alt.  Forsch.  iii,"*  '•). — And  I  viewed  the  people  and 
the  priests,  but  I  did  not  find  any  of  the  sons  of  Levi  there].  This 
explains  the  purpose  of  the  three  days'  encampment.  Ezra 
made  a  scrutiny  of  the  caravan,  which  had  collected  voluntarily, 
his  object  being  to  note  its  composition.  Now  it  would  be 
strange  for  him  to  say  that  he  looked  among  the  laity  and  priests 
and  found  no  Levites  there,  as  if  one  were  to  say  "I  searched 
among  the  privates  and  found  no  officers  there."  Esd.  offers 
a  more  intelligible  text :  /  carefully  observed  them  [the  assembled 


EZRA    7-10  321 

caravan],  a  fid  of  the  pricsls  and  of  the  Lcvites  I  found  none  there, 
i.  e.,  priests  as  well  as  Levites  were  wanting.  It  will  appear 
below  that  Ezra  secured  others  than  Levites  when  he  sent  to 
Casiphia. — 16.  Making  a  necessary  correction  of  the  text,  to  se- 
cure the  lacking  temple  servants,  it  appears  that  an  embassy 
was  sent  out  comprising  two  classes  of  men:  one  called  "heads," 
consisting  of  nine  men  whose  names  are  given ;  the  other  called 
"intelligent,"  and  consisting  of  two  men.  But  we  find  Elna- 
than  three  times,  and  the  very  similar  Nathan  once.  Jarib 
and  Jojarib  are  repetitions,  and  thus  a  noun,  "  leaders,"  and 
its  adjective,  "intelligent,"  have  been  separated.  We  should 
therefore  read:  /  sent  Eliezer,  et  al.,  intelligent  leaders,  men  com- 
petent for  the  task  in  hand.  Of  these  leaders  but  two,  Zechariah 
and  Shemaiah,  are  mentioned  in  the  Chronicler's  list,  vv.  1-", 
an  evidence  of  the  character  of  that  list.  It  is  impossible  to 
tell  just  how  many  Ezra  sent.  The  shortest  and  critically  best 
list  is  found  in  Esd.^:  Eliezer,  Ariel,  Shemaia,  Elnathan,  Nathan, 
Zecheriah,  Meshullam,  seven  in  all. — 17.  And  I  sent  them],  not 
"I  commanded  them,"  which  we  find  as  an  alternative  reading. 
— Unto  Iddo  the  chief  in  Casiphia  the  place].  We  must  omit  the 
place  to  make  good  sense.  The  text  shows  a  Babylonian  idiom. 
Iddo,  otherwise  unknown,  was  the  head  of  a  Jewish  colony 
in  Casiphia,  which  Winckler  locates  on  the  Tigris,  opposite 
Seleucia,  and  so  not  far  from  Ahava  {Alt.  Forsch.  iii,^^  ^■). — 
/  put  words  into  their  mouth].  In  spite  of  his  care  to  choose 
intelligent  chiefs  for  his  embassy,  Ezra  framed  carefully  the 
message  they  were  to  carry  to  Iddo. — Unto  Iddo  his  brethren 
the  Nethinim]  cannot  be  right.  We  should  read  unto  Iddo  and 
his  brethren  the  Nethinim,  or  possibly  Iddo  and  his  brethren 
dwelling  in.  Unless  Levites  and  Nethinim  are  synonymous,  it 
was  evidently  not  merely  Levites  which  Ezra  sought  to  add  to 
his  company.  On  the  Nethinim,  v.  s.  2*^.  It  is  evident  that 
Ezra  was  quite  ignorant  of  the  list  in  c.  2,  or  he  would  not 
have  been  at  such  pains  to  secure  the  attendance  of  classes 
already  supposed  to  be  largely  represented  at  Jerusalem. — To 
bring  to  us  ministers  for  the  house  of  our  God].  Esd.  has  send, 
a  better  reading,  since  the  message  was  to  Iddo,  who  could 


322  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

send  but  not  bring.  Though  some  Vrss.  read  "singers"  for 
"ministers,"  the  more  general  word,  which  includes  all  classes 
of  temple  officers,  is  preferable.  Certainly  this  term  would  not 
be  used  if  Levites  alone  were  desired. — 18.  And  they  brought  to 
us].  Another,  but  erroneous,  text,  though  found  in  (I,  is:  and 
there  came  to  us.  The  meaning  is  that  the  intelligent  leaders 
were  successful  in  their  quest,  for  "the  good  hand  of  God  was 
over"  the  whole  enterprise,  and  they  brought  back  from  Casiphia 
to  the  caravan  at  Ahava  those  enumerated  in  the  list  following. 
— The  rest  of  the  verse  is  confusing:  a  man  of  prudence,  of  the  sons 
of  Mahli  a  son  of  Levi  a  son  of  Israel,  ajid  Sherehiah  and  his  sons 
and  his  brethren  eighteen].  With  Guthe  on  basis  of  Esd.  we  may 
omit  "and,"  and  thus  make  Sherebiah  the  man  of  prudence; 
for  he  was  a  prominent  Levite  in  Ezra's  administration,  v.  ^* 
Ne.  8^  9*  *•.  "Son  of  Levi"  is  here  not  genealogical,  but  official, 
being  equivalent  to  Levite.  "Son  of  Israel"  is  a  corruption. 
Mahli  was  a  son  or  grandson  of  Merari,  v.  ",  and  Merari  was  a 
son  of  Levi.  There  were  eighteen  Levites  of  the  kin  of  the  pru- 
dent Sherebiah  who  joined  him  to  go  up  for  the  temple  service. 
The  true  reading  is:  a  prudent  man  of  the  sons  of  Mahli  a  Levite 
as  the  chief,  Sherebiah,  etc. — 19.  Atid  with  him  Isaiah  of  the  sons 
of  Merari,  his  brethren  and  their  sons  twenty].  The  text  is  ob- 
viously impossible.  <i>  Esd.  omit  "  with  him,"  thus  coupling  the 
two  names  as  co-ordinate;  but  as  this  Isaiah  is  not  named  else- 
where he  could  not  have  been  so  important  a  personage.  The 
Vrss.  vary,  but  B  gives  good  sense:  Hashabiah,  and  with  him 
Isaiah  of  the  sons  of  Merari,  and  his  brethren  and  his  sons  twenty. 
— 20.  And  of  the  Nethinim],  following  which  we  have  the  only 
historical  account  of  this  order,  from  which  it  appears  that  the 
order  was  established  by  David  and  his  ministers  for  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Levites 

The  Chr.  traces  all  the  temple  institutions  to  David,  and  the  inter- 
polation from  his  hand  is  easily  recognised  here.  It  is  prob.  that  kings 
had  been  wont  to  present  slaves  to  the  temple  {v.  Smith,  OT.  Htst.'^^). 
The  statement  is  amplified  in  3  Esd.:  and  they  themselves  were  the 
chiefs  for  the  work  of  the  Lev.  who  served  in  the  temple.  It  is  barely  pos- 
sible that  with  <S  we  should  understand  two  classes  here:  (i)  of  the 


EZRA    7-10  323 

Neth.  whom  David  established,  {2)  <iiid  the  chiefs  for  the  Lcvitical  service, 
the  Neth.  220. — All  of  llicm  were  mentioned  by  name],  or  designated  by 
name,  is  a  phrase  of  the  Chr.  and  shows  another  interpolation.  It 
appears  that  the  embassy  secured  38  Lev.  belonging  to  two  families 
and  220  Neth.  The  caravan  is  now  prepared  to  start  on  its  great 
journey,  but  first  the  favour  of  Yahweh  must  be  secured. 

21.  Ezra  proclaims  a  fast  that  the  people  might  humble 
themselves  before  God  in  order  to  secure  an  auspicious  road. — 
22.  The  reason  for  the  fast  is  now  stated  in  other  terms.  Ezra 
was  ashamed  to  ask  the  king  for  a  guard  to  protect  them  from  the 
enemy  on  the  road],  because  he  had  assured  the  king  that  the 
hand  of  God  was  adequate  both  to  protect  those  who  sought  him 
(Sta.^2^),  and  his  wrath  was  against  those  who  abandoned  him]. 
The  closing  threat  is  wanting  in  Esd.,  which  runs:  the  power  of 
the  Lord  is  with  those  who  seek  him  for  every  reparation.  It  is 
rather  strange  for  Ezra  to  say  that  God's  power  and  wrath  are 
against  those  who  forsake  him. — 23.  And  we  fasted  and  sought 
from  our  God  touching  this,  atid  he  was  entreated  of  us].  Esd. 
reads:  and  we  again  sought  from  our  Lord  all  these  things  and  we 
found  him  favorable.  The  beneficent  disposition  was  not  de- 
terminable at  the  time,  but  was  shown  by  the  ultimate  success  of 
the  enterprise. — 24.  The  first  person  singular  is  resumed:  and 
I  selected  [literally,  separated]  twelve  of  the  leaders  of  the  priests], 
but  two  are  mentioned  by  name,  Sherebiah  and  Hashabiah,  the 
very  ones  who  were  called  Levites  in  vv.  ^^  ^■.  3  Esd.  has:  from 
the  leaders  of  the  people  and  the  priests  of  the  temple,  making  a  lay 
representation  in  this  important  body.  It  looks  as  if  there 
were  a  gap  here  and  that  originally  the  text  ran:  and  I  set  apart 
from  the  leaders  of  the  people  twelve,  and  from  the  priests  of  the 
temple  Sherebiah  and  Hashabiah  and  with  them  ten  of  their  breth- 
ren. The  whole  committee  comprised  24,  half  laymen  and  half 
priests. — 25.  The  purpose  of  their  selection  is  now  given:  aftd 
I  weighed  out  to  them  the  silver  and  the  gold  and  the  vessels,  the 
offering  for  the  house  of  our  God],  the  gifts  to  which  reference 
is  made,  at  least  according  to  the  Chronicler,  in  the  king's  de- 
cree, 71^^-.  It  appears  that  the  property,  which  was  sacred 
on  account  of  its  destination,  was  carefully  weighed  and  then 


324  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

committed  to  hands  deemed  peculiarly  trustworthy. — And  all 
Israel  that  were  found].  So  is  designated  one  of  the  sources  of 
the  gifts.  The  qualifying  clause  is  not  found  in  Esd.,  but  is 
attested  by  (B.  It  is  not  the  kind  of  expression  that  would  be 
added  as  a  gloss.  The  explanation  may  be  in  7^^:  "all  the  silver 
and  the  gold  that  thou  shalt  find  in  the  province  of  Babylonia." 
The  search  was  for  Israelites  from  whom  contributions  could 
be  asked.  All  that  could  be  found  were  solicited.  There  may 
be  an  intimation  that  some  of  the  exiles  were  not  conspicuous 
when  subscriptions  for  the  temple  were  collected. 

26  f.  The  total  amount  is  given  as  650  talents  of  silver,  100  talents 
of  gold,  100  silver  vessels,  20  bowls  of  gold,  and  2  vessels  of  brass. 
The  silver  talents  would  be  about  a  million  dollars,  the  gold  more  than 
three  millions.  There  is,  indeed,  some  uncertainty  in  the  values,  but 
make  it  as  low  as  possible  and  still  the  figures  are  impossibly  big.  We 
realise  the  Chr.'s  fondness  for  large  sums,  and  his  imagination  may 
have  led  to  raising  the  figures  in  Ezra's  chronicle.  As  I  weighed  to  them 
or  lo  their  hand  is  repeated  from  v.  -^  and  as  v.  -^  connects  closely  with 
V.  -'%  vv.  2'  f-  are  almost  certainly  a  gl.,  an  opinion  supported  by  the  closer 
agreement  of  Esd.  and  the  unnatural  description  of  the  words  in  what 
is  supposed  to  be  a  mere  list.  We  have  no  idea  of  the  value  of  the 
silver  vessels,  because  the  number  of  talents  is  wanting,  but  the  worth 
of  the  20  golden  bowls  is  given  as  1,000  darics,  ace.  to  Mey.  about 
$5,000.  On  the  daric,  a  Pers.  coin,  v.  2". — And  two  vessels  of  .  .  . 
brass,  desirable  as  gold].  The  character  of  the  brass  is  usually  given  as 
"finely  polished,"  but  the  construction  is  ungrammatical  and  the  mng. 
obscure.  Esd.  reads:  brass  vessels  of  the  best  brass,  ten  [or  twelve]  polished 
vessels. 

28.  You  are  holy  to  Yahweh]  by  virtue  of  your  sacred  office, 
and  the  vessels  are  holy],  because  they  were  to  be  placed  in  the 
temple,  7",  arid  the  silver  and  the  gold  is  a  free-will  offering  to 
Yahweh],  and  therefore  that  also  is  a  sacred  trust.  With  (&  and 
Esd.  we  should  read  God  of  our  fathers,  since  Ezra  would  not 
say  your  fathers. — 29.  Be  watchful  and  vigilant  until  you  weigh 
it  again  in  the  presence  of  the  leaders  of  the  priests  and  Levites  and 
leaders*  of  the  fathers  of  Israel  in  Jerusalem].     Whatever  may 

•  Guthe  makes  a  slight  change  and  reads  "  heads,"  the  more  common  expression  for  the 
laity;  but  "  heads  "  is  characteristic  of  the  Chr.,  not  of  E.  There  is  no  need  to  emend  where 
the  Chr.  has  let  the  test  alone. 


EZRA    7-10  325 

have  been  the  amount  of  the  sacred  property,  Ezra  carefully 
impresses  upon  its  guardians  tlieir  great  responsibility. — The 
chambers  of  the  house  of  Yahweh]  designates  more  particularly 
the  place  where  the  gifts  were  to  be  put.  With  <S  we  should 
prefix  "for"  or  "in." 

30.  This  V.  is  an  addition  by  the  Chr.,  for  the  third  p.  is  used  at  the 
beginning  and  the  first  at  the  end;  pr.  and  Lev.  are  here  the  custodians 
of  the  valuables,  whereas  above  twelve  chief  pr.  were  the  treasurers; 
the  statement  gets  ahead  of  Ezra's  narrative  in  v. ",  and  it  adds  noth- 
ing whatever  to  the  story.  Esd.  has  a  radically  different  text:  and  the 
pr.  and  Lev.,  receiving  the  silver  and  the  gold  and  the  vessels  which  were  in 
Jems.,  brought  them  to  the  house  of  tJie  Lord.  It  becomes  thus  an  exact 
dup.  of  V. ". 

15.  Ninx-'^s  N3n]  Esd.^  tov  iuoxa[jLbv  im  XsToyievov  Esta;  so  rd.  Nipn, 
This  important  reading  seems  to  have  escaped  all  the  commentators. 
The  text  is  at  variance  with  vv.  '^-  =1.  The  Vrss.  give  several  forms 
of  the  name:  EusiplB^  EuscAL  (vv.  ^i-^'),  ©out^,  AousA,  AaouaOL.  Esd. 
0£pav;  H  Ahava,  Esd.  Thia.  Winckler  reads:  naix  or  nax. — hjon]  (S 
auvYjxa's,  xaxsvoTjaa^,  B  qiicesivi,  Esd.  x(ZT^[jia6ov,  3  Esd.  recognovi. 
These  all  support  the  text. — For  what  follows  Esd.  has  a  better  text: 
xa-uetxaOov  auToCti;  %a.\  Ix  twv  lepewv  xal  ex  xwv  AsutTwv  oij%  et)pd)v  Ixef. 
Therefore  rd.  ...  a"'jn3ci  dj>3ni.  The  Chr.  having  put  pr.  in  the  list 
(vv.  =  ff )  must,  of  course,  have  them  here. — 16.  We  must  either  drop 
the  prep.  S  before  each  name,  as  ^^  B  and  Esd.L,  or  interpret  *?  rhv 
as  mng.  "summon"  or  "sent  for."  V.  "  shows  that  the  men  named 
were  Ezra's  messengers.  The  Vrss.  show  much  discrepancy  in  the  list 
of  names:  <S^  has  Aps^  for  an''  and  3nM>;  the  names  are  certainly  du- 
plications; (B^  omits  from  a^CNi  to  end  of  v.;  Esd.  lacks  the  last  two 
names  altogether,  and  so  recognises  no  classes.  The  evidence  shows 
that  ]n:Sxi  aniv  are  accidental  repetitions.  Then  a''B'Ni  and  D'raa 
should  be  joined  together  as  in  Esd.:  ■fjYoutAsvou<;  xal  i%i.in:^\xQV(xq^^, 
apxovxaq  auvsTou^i-. — 17.  nssix]  so  d§>^'^  e^Tiveyxa.  Qr.  nixN,  so  (gi-  ev- 
etetXatATjv.  The  former  is  the  better  reading.  Esd.^A  xal  Blr.a  ocu-zolg 
eX6£iv  =  .iinx':'  DiDxi. — . . .  nx].  For  this  very  difficult  text  05^  has:  exl 
(Spxov-ro?  £v  apyupiq)  toQ  toxou,  /.  e.,  Dipcn  <flDD3  k'xt  Sy.  This  makes 
no  sense  and  this  version  is  still  more  hopeless  in  v. ''.  Esd.  xpb? 
AaaJalov  [ASSati-,  AoXSatov'^],  "zhy  TjYOU[J.evov  tov  ev  tw  toxcjj  •{a'(iO(fu'k(zxlou, 
i.  e.,  laun  a^po2  B'Nin  i-in-Sn.  In  spite  of  the  antiquity  of  the  cor- 
ruption, it  is  best  to  regard  the  ungrammatical  aip?Dn  as  a  marginal 
note  to  show  that  the  unknown  Casiphia  was  a  place;  it  is  employed 
like  the  Bah.  determinative.  We  might  easily  imagine  that  this  pas- 
sage was  originally  written  in  Bal). — i^ns  •'-in]  (S""^  xp?)?  toij<;  aScX-^bu^ 


326  EZRvV-NEHEMIAH 

aOxGJv  -CUV  'AOav£t[jL;  ^  %cd  icpbi;  t.  a.  a.  tou<;  NaOtvafou?.  It  suffices  to 
rd.  with  Esd.  vn^i.  Esd.  lacks  aunjn,  and  this  may  be  an  error  for 
D^aty^n. — son*^]  Esd.  axocrxiXao  =  nSttf. — a^m^-c]  (§  ^.Sovxa^BA  (a^Ti->i'n); 
i'hasdup.,X£o'uoupYQLii;-/.al  aoovxa;;,  Esd.  ispaxeuaavTOs,  in  agreement  with 
its  reading  in  v.  '^j  so  3  Esd.  coj  5«i  saccrdotlo  Jimgerentiir  =  a''jn3D. — 
18.  wom]  so  Esd.i-  T^-fixjov,  B  and  3  Esd.  adduxcnml;  Qr.  ini3m,  so  (S 
T]XGoaavBAj  ^^.Govi-.  The  first  clause  is  lacking  in  Esd.B.  Kt.  is  pref- 
erable, as  the  Hiph.  corresponds  to  x^anS,  v. ". — aavjn]  Esd.AL  xpaxtav 
=  nptnn. — ^y^  v^a]  puzzled  the  translators;  (§  has  iiv?)p  CTax'o(x)^'^>  «• 
cuvexo?!-,  doctissimum  H,  Esd.  avSpoc  IxtaxTjiAovaBL^  avopa<;  £'iuiaxTi[xova(;Aj 
z)i>05  peritos  3  Esd.  There  is  no  good  reason  for  a  pi.,  as  the  words 
apply  only  to  Sherebiah. — n^a-mn]  (&  xotl  apx'']v  rik^oaav^^,  ev  depxfi  Sa- 
pouca^,  so  Esd.^;  apx^)  is  used  to  translate  twenty-four  different  Heb. 
words  (Hatch  and  Redpath,  Concord.),  but  the  text  was  apparently 
P'.rxn2,  "at  the  head,"  and  that  has  been  corrupted  to  SxTkr^-p.  That 
designation  would  agree  with  the  statement  that  Sherebiah  was  a 
prudent  man. — mS  p]  is  wanting  in  C^k — 19,  xhe  text  is  corrupt.  It 
requires  the  slightest  change  to  make  sense:  et  Hasahiam,  el  cum  eo 
Isaiam  dcfillis  Merari,  fratresque  ejus,  et  filios  ejus  viginti.  (&  and  Esd. 
rd.  HN  for  inx.  OI^a  have  ulol  auxwv,  ^  xwv  uluv  otuxoij  xal  xuv  deSsX^wv 
auxoij,  transposing  in  agreement  with  v.  ".  But  in  Esd.  ^  has  auxwv 
in  both  cases,  while  ^  has  for  the  whole  v. :  o\  ix  xwv  ulwv  xavouva'ou 
xal  ol  u'tol  aoxwv  s't'/toat  avopss;  3  Esd.  Asbiam  et  Aniin  ex  jiUis  fiUorum 
Chanancci,  et  filii  corum  viri  viginti.  Two  names  are  pretty  well  at- 
tested, but  there  is  doubt  between  Merari  and  nijjn.  On  the  whole, 
the  reading  of  the  Latin  is  the  simplest,  requiring  but  a  single  change, 
i.  e.,  vi2\ — 20.  in:]  =  "appoint,"  cf.  BDB. — ancn]  (5  01  apxovxe?,  Esd. 
q\  TiYoutievot,  3  Esd.  principes.  Therefore  there  is  no  support  for 
Winckler's  emendation,  as-nirn. — o^yr\3 .  . .  inja']  is  inserted  by  the  Chr. 
as  an  explanatory  note.  The  rel.  a*  never  occurs  elsw.  in  Ezr.-Ne., 
but  twice  in  Ch.  (Dr.i""--  =■"  f).  Sieg.  regards  whole  v.  as  a  gl. — 
I3p:]  (B  cn)yfiyj^ri<^av^'^,  wvoixdcffOrjaavi',  B  vocahantur,  Esd.  icavxwv  la- 
yj^jlccvGy]  [ovofJiaaOTjA]  ivotxaxoYpczyta^;  oSxot  lar^ijLcivOTjcav  sv  dvoiiaxoYpacpfi?^; 
3  Esd.  omnia  nomina  significata  sunt  in  scripturis.  It  is  a  favourite 
phrase  of  the  Chr.  (Dr.i°''-- ^3«). — 22.  ij-ii>-'^]  (S  awaat,  Esd.  iaipaXeta-;. 
There  is  much  variety  in  the  rendering  of  the  last  clause:  Ci»  renders 
lit.,  but  Esd.  has:  bxu?  [^V  for  i^]  xou  xupt'ou  Tjyiwv  ecxat  ^Ji.s'^a  twv 
extl^T^xouvxwv  auTov  sXq  ixaaav  IxavopOuatv;  3  Esd.  virtus  Domini  erit  cum 
eis  qui  inquirunt  cum  in  onini  affectu.  This  lacks  the  last  clause  entirely, 
i.  e.,  the  threat  to  those  who  abandon  God. — 23.  idisj]  Esd.  icctXcv  = 
naiirj. — 24.  oijnDn  na'c]  3  Esd.  ex  plebis  prcepositis  et  sacerdotibus  tem- 
pli  =  ^■:i-'7\7[  ^J^^1  ayn  ncc. — nia^B''?].  The  prep,  is  supported  by  <S^^, 
but  not  by  d^  Esd.  It  is  an  error,  but  not,  I  think,  accidental.  It 
was  prob.  put  in  to  avoid  the  statement  that  Sherebiah  and  Hashabiah 
were  pr. — 25.  n'^v''^^-']  ®  saxYjoa,  so  vv.  =«■  -'•  ",  Esd.  as  (&,  but  in  vv. 


EZRA    7-10  327 

26.  29  TuapiS(ox£v.  In  my  addenda  to  Guthe  (SBOT.")  I  stated  that  in 
Ezr.  82'-  '3  xapiSwxEv  stands  for  S"''*''-  Torrey  denies  this  and  insists 
that  S"'!!'  is  represented  by  axYJaac;  and  axaOlv  (ES.'^').  It  is  true  that 
Iffxivat  stands  for  Spa',  though  very  rarely,  but  in  Esd.  8^^  (=  j^zr.  8"), 
xapaSoGvat  does  represent  '^i"'!:'.  In  S'-^-  "  (  =  Ezr.  S^"-  33)  we  have  both  Gk. 
words,  TcapdSwxev  axiQaa?,  axaOev  TcapeSoOrj;  ax-Qaa?  and  axaOiv  may  there- 
fore be  complementary  vbs. — 26.  onojS]  cannot  be  connected  with 
any  word  as  it  stands;  niSD  gives  the  number  of  the  vessels,  not  of 
talents  as  RV.  The  word  is  lacking  in  (5  B.  Mey.  suggests  that  a 
number  has  fallen  out,  but  says  that  it  may  be  that  each  vessel  averaged 
a  talent  (Ent.^^).  Guthe  omits  the  word  as  a  gl.  On  the  analogy  of 
tlVx  D''jD"n!<S,  V. ",  the  most  natural  supposition  is  that  a  number  fol- 
lowed, so  that  the  text  originally  rd. :  100  silver  vessels  [weighing]  .  .  . 
talents. — 27.  D''J3"\in?]  (S  elq  T-fjv  oSbv  %ix\i.(xyzi\f).  (SpaxtJ^-wv^,  SpaxfAa?^). 
This  is  a  dup.  reading,  first  ']'\'^h  and  then  correcting  by  adding  a 
weight.  Esd.  lacks  the  word  and  the  numeral  following  as  well. — 
niynj  >So].  Here  we  have  a  mpl.  followed  by  a  f.  adj.  The  Vrss.  vary: 
C5  axEUY]  xaXxoiJ  axCk^ovioq  dyaOoO  St(4tpopa  £TCt6u(JLY]Ta  Iv  [w<;^]  XP'^'^'V? 
Esd.  axeuTj  ycCkv-OL  ktcq  '/jxkv.nij  xprjaxou  axt'X^ovxa  axeuT)  Sexa  [xpuaoetSou? 
SIxa  Suo]!-,  showing  a  correction  from  MT.  This  would  be:  ntrm  iSs 
1!:'^  D^jnsD  u-h-2  n3ia  n^'mn.  Sieg.  emends  nana  ansn  to  210  ante,  "bet- 
ter than  gold,"  and  then  disposes  of  nmnn  as  a  later  gl.  In  spite  of 
lack  of  textual  support  this  is  ingenious.  Some  emendation  is  neces- 
sary, but  it  is  dub.  if  brass  would  be  considered  as  desirable  as  gold, 
unless  it  were  of  an  unusual  kind. — 29.  iSpB'n]  Esd.  -rcapaSouvat  auxA 
b\}.a.c,. — Sxitt'^'?]  lacking  in  (Sba^  but  it  is  used  in  place  of  a  genitive  and 
denotes  the  lay  order  that  had  a  part  in  the  government  as  well  as 
the  pr.  and  Lev. — niDirSn]  CS>  etq  a/,T]V(is^A^  gj^  ^^  xaaxocpdpta^,  H  in  Ihe- 
sanrum,  3  Esd.  in  pastoporio.  Doubtless  we  should  rd.  3  or  S  for  n; 
the  art.  could  not  be  used  with  st.  cstr. — 30.  ^pvji  lacking  in  Esd.;  it 
is  certainly  unnecessary. 

As  our  text  stands,  Ezra  discovered  that  there  were  no  Lev.  in  his 
caravan,  and  therefore  he  sent  a  large  embassy,  seven  or  possibly  eleven 
men,  to  Iddo  to  make  good  the  deficiency,  or,  as  he  says,  "  to  bring  us 
ministers  for  the  house  of  God."  Sherebiah  with  18  brethren,  Hasha- 
biah  with  20,  and  220  Neth.  were  brought  back.  But  these  two  men 
are  called  "leaders  of  the  pr."  in  v.  24,  and  rightly,  for  the  precious 
money  and  vessels  would  have  been  committed  to  the  highest  class  of 
sacred  officials.  ^S-p  in  v.  '^  is  lacking  in  (S^  and  may  be  a  gl.  to  har- 
monise with  v.  '5.  Esd.,  indeed,  says  that  both  pr.  and  Lev.  were  lack- 
ing, and  that  agrees  with  the  mission  to  bring  ministers  for  the  temple. 
But  it  is  strange  that  in  the  assembly  called  by  the  great  pr.  Ezra, 
there  was  neither  pr.  nor  Lev.  Nevertheless  it  is  possible  that  these 
officers  were  wedded  to  the  old  ways  and  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the 


328  EZRA-NEIIEMIAH 

new  order  which  Ezra  proposed  to  mstitule,  and  only  joined  the  car- 
avan after  much  persuasion  and  perhaps  with  liberal  promises.  Then 
we  should  explain  the  large  number  of  Neth.  as  being  a  subordinate 
order  of  Lev.  In  regard  to  the  descent  of  Sherebiah  from  Mahli  and 
Hashabiah  from  Merari,  it  suffices  to  say  that  every  pr.  was  of  Levit- 
ical  descent. 

331-36  ^  £g(j   8^°-'*\    The  caravan  goes  to  Jerusalem. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  the  company  the  money  and  vessels  were  counted 
and  placed  in  the  temple,  sacrifices  were  offered,  and  the  royal  edict 
was  delivered  to  the  officers  of  the  Syrian  province.  Only  vv. "  '•  are 
from  E.;  the  rest  is  the  Chr.'s. 

31.  On  the  twelfth  day  of  the  first  month].  On  the  date,  v.  7^  ^■. 
According  to  that  passage  the  journey  lasted  about  four  months, 
Jerusalem  being  reached  in  the  5th  month  of  the  7th  year  of 
Artaxerxes. — And  the  hand  of  our  God  was  upon  us].  We  miss 
the  usual  adjective  qualifying  "hand,"  but  in  Esd.  we  find 
mighty  hand. — And  he  delivered  us  from  the  hand  of  the  enemy  and 
lier-in-wait  on  the  way],  or  better  with  Esd. :  from  every  foe  on  the 
way.  So  they  knew  that  God  had  heeded  their  petition,  v.  ^s. 
Emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  safety  of  their  journey,  because  such 
caravans  were  always  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  plundering 
Bedouin;  though  the  caravan  comprised  upward  of  2,000  people 
their  defensive  power  was  little,  v.  ^2;  the  large  amount  of  treas- 
ure carried,  the  possession  of  which  could  scarcely  be  kept  a  se- 
cret, made  an  attack  especially  inviting. — 32  f .  And  we  remained 
there  three  days,  and  on  thefoiirth  day].  This  statement  is  scarcely 
natural,  as  we  should  expect  to  continue  by  saying  "they  went 
to  some  other  place."  If  we  could  render  "rested,"  that  would 
make  good  sense,  but  '2"^'^  does  not  mean  that.  Therefore  we  had 
better  follow  Esd. :  on  the  third  day  of  our  being  there,  we  weighed, 
etc.,  or  better  with  (S  placed,  since  in  the  house  of  God  shows  the 
ultimate  destination  of  the  treasure,  not  the  mere  place  of  re- 
weighing. — The  final  custodians  are  now  named;  there  were 
two  priests:  Meremoth]  10'^  Ne.  3^-  ^i  io«  la^-  ^^  not  the  same 
person,  though,  in  every  case,  and  Eliezer],  who  had  been  one 
of  those  deputed  to  fetch  temple  servants,  v.  ^«.  Besides  there 
were  two  Levites,  Jozahad]  {id^-  '■  Ne.  8^  ii'«)  and  Noadiah],  a 


EZRA    7-10  329 

name  elsewhere  only  of  a  prophetess,  Ne.  6".  In  spite  of  the 
lower  ofl&ce  of  the  Levites  they  were  associated  with  the  priests 
in  the  care  of  the  temple  treasures.  The  peculiar  expression 
Meremoth  .  .  .  and  with  him  Eliezer  .  .  .  and  with  them],  sup- 
ported by  all  the  Vrss.,  means  that  Meremoth  was  chief,  his 
first  associate  being  a  fellow-priest,  and  their  associates  being 
two  Levites. — 34.  The  awkward  expression  by  number  and  by 
weight  for  everything]  shows  the  hand  of  the  Chronicler,  who 
dearly  loved  amplification.  It  is  quite  superfluous  in  view  of 
the  following :  and  the  whole  weight  was  recorded],  to  tally  with 
the  list  made  at  Ahava,  and  to  show  for  what  amount  Meremoth 
and  his  associates  were  responsible.  The  care  of  the  treasure 
reveals  at  every  point  a  commendable  business  sagacity.  The 
writer  may  have  recalled  such  stories  as  that  in  2  K.  12,  where 
the  priests  purloined  money  given  for  the  repair  of  the  temple. 
— At  that  time]  is  better  connected  with  v.  ^^,  as  in  some  Greek 
texts. — 35.  The  sons  of  the  captivity  who  had  come  from  the  exile] 
is  intended  to  emphasise  the  statement  that  the  great  sacrifices 
were  made  wholly  by  Ezra's  company  and  were  not  participated 
in  by  those  already  in  Jerusalem. — Twelve  bullocks  for  all  Israel], 
i.  €.,  one  for  each  tribe,  showing  the  persistent  theory  that  the 
new  Israel  comprised  the  whole  nation.  The  specific  number  of 
rams,  96,  it  is  to  be  noted  is  a  multiple  of  12.  Note  also  12 
he-goats,  and  according  to  Esd.  there  were  72  lambs  (instead 
of  77).  Our  text  has  he-goats  of  a  sin  offering]  (v,  on  6"),  but 
Esd.  reads  12  he-goats  for  deliverance,  making  this  sacrifice  a 
thank-offering  for  the  safe  journey,  or  it  may  be  a  peace-offer- 
ing.— 36.  And  they  delivered  the  king^s  decree]  not  decrees,  pre- 
sumably meaning  the  edict  in  7^^  ^■],  to  the  king^s  satraps,  the 
governors  beyond  the  River].  There  should  be  no  "and  unto" 
before  "governors,"  though  the  last  clause  is  a  gloss.  These 
were,  of  course,  the  Persian  ofl5cers  in  the  province. — And  they 
supported  the  people  and  the  house  of  God]  is  difficult.  We  may 
take  recourse  in  one  Greek  text:  and  they  supported  the  people 
and  honored  the  house  of  God,  or  emend  the  text  slightly,  reading : 
the  people  honored  the  house  of  God,  thus  explaining  the  large 
offerings.    The  subject  of  "supported"  is  usually  held  to  be 


^^O  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  Persian  officials,  and  that  is  presumably  what  the  Chronicler 
meant,  but  grammatically  it  is  the  same  as  that  of  "delivered." 

Vv. "  '•  are  surely  by  the  Chr.  The  use  of  the  third  p.  as  well  as  the 
character  of  the  passage  shows  that  (so  Fischer,  Chr.  Fr.^).  In  the 
rest  we  have  the  first  p.  pi.  throughout,  but  it  is  consistent  in  vv. "  '• 
with  Ezra's  usage  to  employ  the  pi.  to  describe  a  corporate  act.  In 
V. "  we  should  surely  have  pNi,  though  MT.  is  supported  by  all  texts. 
In  V.  ">=  Esd.B  has  third  p.  throughout;  and  other  Mss.  of  Esd.  and  C5 
have  it  in  places.  Yet  something  is  required  between  v.  -^  and  9'.  The 
only  part  of  our  text  which  inspires  confidence  is  vv.  '■  f-.  The  rest  is 
written  by  the  Chr.  or  edited  by  him  beyond  recognition  of  the  orig- 
inal. It  is  plain  that,  omitting  the  Chr.'s  "  after  these  things,"  v. "  con- 
nects well  with  9'. 

31.  Nin«  nnj]  Esd.  i:6xou  ©epi^^  -icoTaiAoGAL. — t^i]  Esd.  xa-ra  xpaxatdbv 
xslpa.  We  should  restore  rypm  for  the  superfluous  r\r\^Ty. — 3iin)  j^in  «13d] 
(S)  dcxb  zetpbi;  sxOpou  x^al  xoXetifou^A  -j_  IvsSpeuovTOc;!-,  showing  a  double 
rendering  of  aiix;  Esd.  has  only  axb  xdvTo?  sxOpoO  (^mn-Sdd).  3  Esd. 
lacks  V.  ^.  It  is  prob.  that  "^s  was  corrupted  to  10  and  that  3niN  is  an 
amplification  by  the  Chr.  or  an  accidental  repetition  of  a  similar  word. 
— 32 f.  .  .  .  3'i'Ji].  The  unrevised  Esd.  gives  merely:  YevonlvT)?  (Tjiitv) 
aixoBt  -fiEA^pai;  -cptTTj^B,  to  which  t^  ^ia^p?  tt)  TSTiipTT)  has  been  added 
in  AL  from  MT.,  but  without  changing  the  construction,  and  so  making  no 
sense.  3  Esd.  et  cum  f actus  fuisset  tertius  dies,  quarta  autem  die. — Vpa*:] 
iQxr\z(x\i.s.y  of  05  goes  better  with  ni32. — 34.  .  .  .  -12033]  Esd.  Tcpb<;  aptO- 
(ibv  xal  6Xx9)v  TCizvTa. — 35.  nj'aa'i  D^yatt']  Esd.AL  ipSofi-^xovTa  S60,  rightly, 
since  every  offering  is  twelve  or  a  multiple  of  twelve. — nson  n^sx]  cf. 
N>C3n'?  >i''flS,  6";  (S  xtsxipous  xepl  ajxapTfaq;  Esd.SAxpiyouq  ux2p<j6)TT]p(ou, 
».  e.,  •iSb''?  Dnox.or  nyia^n  »x. — 36.  ''m]  cj.  71^;  in  spite  of  (S  we  must  rd. 
sg.  m. — ijo-ncnx]  Pers.  Khshaliapavan,  used  also  in  Est.  3"  8'  9'.  (8^* 
Tol?  SiotxTjTali;.  Esd.  xoI<;  oExov6[Aot";,  3  Esd.  dispensatoribus.  (6^  has  a 
wholly  different  text:  the  governors  of  the  king  and  the  officers  beyond 
the  River  gave  the  burnt-oferings  of  the  king. — . . .  T\wns\  is  an  explanatory 
gl. — iKSyj]  (S^A  Esd.  a86§aaav,  ^  exrjpav  -ubv  Xabv  xal  eSd^otoav  tbv  o?xov  t.  6. 

EZR.  9,   10.      THE    MIXED    MARRIAGES    AND    THEIR    DISSOLUTION. 

In  this  section  we  find  Ezra  dealing  with  the  Jews  already  in  Judah. 
This  is  the  only  event  of  his  administration  recorded  in  the  book  called 
by  his  name.    The  rest  of  his  mission  is  described  in  Ne.  8. 

9'"^  =  Esd.  S*^^".    The  officers  report  to  Ezra  that  the 
Jews  had  been  marrying  women  of  alien  races. — 1.  Now 

when  tltese  things  were  completed].    As  our  text  stands  the  ref- 


EZRA    7-10  331 

erence  is  to  the  depositing  of  the  treasure  in  the  temple,  the 
sacrifices,  and  the  delivery  of  the  edict.  But  it  is  far  from  cer- 
tain that  we  have  the  whole  of  the  memoirs,  and  there  may  be 
a  gap  between  8'^  and  9',  poorly  filled  by  the  Chronicler's  notes. 
These  words  are  certainly  a  connecting  link  due  to  the  Chron- 
icler. So  far  as  we  can  see,  though,  this  passage  directly  follows 
V.  ''^,  and  the  connection  is  passable. — We  dwell  there  three  days, 
[when]  there  drew  near  unto  me  the  leaders  reporting].  "Leaders" 
is  characteristic  of  E.;  the  Chronicler  uses  "heads."  They 
cannot  be  the  same  as  those  named  in  v.  ^  '^  as  chief  trespassers. 
After  this  the  text  is  bad,  but  probably  ran  somewhat  as  fol- 
lows: the  magistrates  and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  have  not 
separated  themselves  from  the  peoples  of  the  lands].  On  peoples 
of  the  lands,  v.  on  4^  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  a  gloss,  added  to 
increase  the  stigma.  According  to  their  abominations]  has  no 
place  here;  for  that  word  refers  to  the  religious  practices,  while 
here  the  only  fault  is  the  mixed  marriages.  Ewald's  proposal 
to  emend  and  read  "from  their  abominations"  {Hist.  v.  i-") 
improves  the  grammatical  construction,  and  should  be  adopted 
if  the  phrase  is  accepted. — The  list  of  foreigners  is  based  on 
Dt.  yS  where  we  find  Girgashite  and  Hivite,  but  not  Ammonite, 
Moabite,  or  Egyptian;  in  (^  these  three  are  at  the  end  of  the 
list,  suggesting  a  gloss.  Esd.  omits  Ammonite,  and  reads  Edom- 
ite  for  Amorite,  a  reading  accepted  by  Smend  (Listen,-*),  thus 
having  seven  nations  (cf.  Acts  13^^).  Nehemiah  found  mar- 
riages only  with  the  Ashdodites  {v.  132^). — 2.  The  specific 
charge  is  now  made  to  explain  the  general  accusation  in  v.  ^i 
they  have  taken  wives  of  their  [peoples  of  the  lands']  daughters  for 
themselves  and  for  their  sons].  There  is  no  hint  that  Jewish 
women  had  married  foreign  men.  The  condition  is  attributable 
to  the  scarcity  of  women  in  the  new  community. — The  result 
is  that  the  holy  seed  is  amalgamated  with  the  peoples  of  the  lands]. 
Israel  is  called  a  "holy  seed"  in  Is.  6^^  cf.  62^2  Mai.  2^'\— 
Now  the  hand  of  the  leaders  and  nobles  was  chief  in  this  wrong]  is 
usually  regarded  as  the  conclusion  of  the  accusation;  but  from 
the  structure  it  could  only  be  a  note  by  Ezra  or  the  Chronicler. 
3  Esd.  preserves  what  I  deem  the  original  text:  the  officer  of 


332  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

lawlessness  has  been  a  participant  [in  the  wrong]  from  the  begin- 
ning of  his  rule.  Here  is  a  specific  charge  of  dereliction  on  the 
part  of  one  of  the  high  Jewish  oflScials.  The  words  then  give 
the  climax  of  the  accusation. — 3.  Upon  hearing  this  Ezra  ex- 
hibited the  outward  acts  of  mourning,  tearing  his  clothes,  and 
pulling  his  hair  from  his  head  and  beard,  and  sat  down  appalled]. 
Esd.  forcefully  renders  anxious  and  very  sad,  CI  silent  and  won- 
dering. It  appears  that  the  mourner  showed  his  distress  by 
his  actions,  but  that  all  the  day  he  was  silent,  uttering  no 
cry  until  the  evening  oblation. — 4.  And  there  gathered  unto  me 
all  that  trembled  at  the  word  [not  ivords]  of  the  God  of  Israel],  all 
that  showed  any  purpose  to  keep  the  law.  ($  has  all  that  fol- 
lowed the  word,  a  rather  better  sense,  though  we  have  a  parallel 
to  the  text  in  Is.  66  ^ — Because  of  the  wrong  of  the  captivity] 
is  difficult  here.  Esd.  has  a  better  sense :  while  I  was  mourning 
because  of  the  laivlessness. — 5.  And  at  the  evening  oblation]  used 
as  a  mark  of  time  {cf.  i  K.  i8-^)  and  to  indicate  the  appropri- 
ate moment  for  prayer. — /  rose  from  my  humiliation],  a  doubtful 
sense;  the  word  is  only  used  here.  Esd.  renders /a^/wg. — Even 
with  my  garment  and  my  robe  rent]  RV.,  which  Ryle  prefers  to 
AV.  "having  rent  my  garment  and  my  mantle." 

The  latter  is  an  accurate  rendering;  indeed,  the  text  will  not  allow 
RV.,  which  is  made  to  harmonise  with  the  statement  of  v.'  that  Ezra 
had  already  rent  his  garments.  Moreover,  some  such  action  is  required 
to  explain  his  getting  up  and  then  kneeling  down.  It  may  be  that  he 
rent  his  garments  again,  though  the  act  would  scarcely  be  appropriate 
at  the  beginning  of  his  prayer.  The  attitude  of  prayer  is  bowing  the 
knees  and  spreading  forth  the  hands.  So  Solomon  knelt  upon  his 
knees  with  his  hands  spread  forth  toward  heaven,  i  K.  8*^  The  hands 
were  extended  upward  (Ex.  17'-),  so  the  supplicant  could  not  have 
bowed  his  face  to  the  ground. 

9^^s  ^  £sjj^  871-87^    Ezra's  prayer. 

The  history  of  Israel  is  reviewed,  showing  that  the  sufiferings  of  the 
people  were  due  to  their  sins.  Just  now  God  had  shown  a  gracious 
purpose  which  was  in  danger  of  being  thwarted  by  the  violation  of 
the  prophetic  word  forbidding  mingling  with  aliens.  The  prayer  closes 
with  a  despondent  cry  that  the  people  cannot  stand  before  an  offended 
God. 


EZRA    7-10  333 

6.  And  I  said].  In  some  mss.  of  Esd.  we  read:  and  Ezra  said. 
— /  am  ashamed  and  confounded  before  thee],  as  Esd.  lacking  to 
lift  tip  my  face,  is  better  language  than  MT.  If  we  retain  to 
lift  up  my  face  unto  thee  we  should  expect  but  one  preceding 
verb, — For  our  iniquities  are  many  above  head]  is  what  MT.  has, 
but  this  is  unintelligible.  The  idea  cannot  be  "higher  than  our 
head"  in  parallelism  with  our  guilt  is  great  unto  the  heavens]; 
for  the  verb  HHI  means  "to  be  many"  not  "to  be  high."  EV^ 
"our  iniquities  are  increased  over  our  head"  is  obscure,  as 
above  the  head  is  a  strange  place  for  the  increase  of  wrongs. 
On  the  basis  of  Esd.  we  may  read :  our  iniquities  are  more  numer- 
ous than  the  hairs  of  our  head,  cf.  Ps.  40^^  69^ — Unto  the  heavens] 
so  as  to  reach  the  heavens,  viewed  as  a  definite  place  above  the 
earth. — 7.  From  the  days  of  our  fathers],  as  shown  by  unto  this 
day,  means  from  the  beginning  of  history. — Because  of  our  in- 
iquities we,  our  kings,  our  priests,  have  been  delivered].  It  is 
hard  to  see  why  kings  and  priests  should  be  specified  as  the 
victims  of  the  sword,  captivity,  plundering  and  shame  of  face]. 
The  Vrss.  vary  greatly,  but  I  have  ventured  to' restore  we  all 
with  our  brethren  and  our  sons,  and  thus  we  get  a  characteristic 
general  description  so  frequent  in  these  books.  Esd.  has  a  plus : 
our  iniquities  and  those  of  our  fathers,  showing  the  idea  that  the 
past  suffering  could  not  be  due  to  present  sins. — hito  the  hands 
of  the  kings  of  the  lands],  "lands"  as  often  meaning  foreign  coun- 
tries; so  (S  plainly,  kings  of  the  gentiles. — 8.  And  now  [to  come  to 
the  heart  of  the  matter]  as  for  a  moment,  there  was  mercy  from 
Yahweh  our  God  [for  which  (S»  has  only  and  now  our  God  has  re- 
stored us]  to  leave  us  a  root  and  a  name  in  his  holy  place],  emending 
on  the  basis  of  Esd.  MT.  has  to  give  us  a  tent-pin  in  his  holy 
place,  interpreted  to  mean  a  secure  position.  Why  a  tent-pin 
should  have  such  a  significance  is  not  clear,  and  besides  Ezra 
regards  the  position  of  the  people  as  very  insecure.  The  holy 
place  covers  more  than  the  temple,  including  the  sacred  city. 
— To  lighten  our  eyes,  O  our  God]  occurs  in  Prov.  29"  Ps.  13^ 
19',  but  fits  poorly  here.  The  real  meaning  is  to  give  under- 
standing or  to  restore  health  or  to  refresh,  cf.  i  S.  14^^  Esd. 
has  a  suggestive  text :  to  uncover  our  light  in  the  house  of  God. 


334  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

The  idea  then  would  be  that  God  had  enabled  his  people  once 
more  to  worship  him  in  his  holy  temple;  they  were  no  longer 
constrained  to  sing  Yahweh's  songs  in  a  strange  land  (Ps.  137*). 
— Give  us  a  little  reviving  in  our  bofidage],  ARV.,  is  scarcely  to 
be  extracted  from  MT.  Making  a  slight  correction  from  Esd. 
and  translating  correctly  we  have:  to  give  us  sustenance  in  the 
time  of  our  bondage.  That  may  seem  to  refer  to  the  past  rather 
than  the  present;  but  the  condition  of  bondage  in  a  way  per- 
sists, V.  ^,  and  the  meaning  is  that  God  was  supporting  them  in 
their  servitude. — 9 .  The  benefits  conferred  by  their  God  through 
the  agency  of  the  Persian  kings,  the  plural  (kings)  showing  that 
Ezra  is  not  dealing  with  a  single  incident,  are:  (i)  to  give  us 
sustenance];  but  this  is  a  repetition  of  the  statement  in  v.  *; 
therefore  with  Esd.  read  to  show  us  mercy,  i.  e.,  by  the  release 
from  captivity;  (2)  to  erect  the  house  of  our  God],  referring  to* 
the  rebuilding  by  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua;  (3)  to  raise  up  its 
ruins],  so  amplifying  the  preceding;  but  this  is  a  needless  repe- 
tition, therefore  read  with  Esd.  to  raise  up  the  desolation  of  Zion, 
and  so  we  have  a  more  comprehensive  statement  than  building 
the  temple  and  referring  to  the  new  houses  which  had  certainly 
been  erected  in  the  city  by  Nehemiah;  (4)  to  give  us  a  wall  in 
Judah  and  Jerusalem].  "Wall"  is  occasionally  used  in  a  figura- 
tive sense,  for  the  divine  protection,  and  Mey.  so  interprets 
here  (Ent.^);  but  the  preceding  statements  are  literal,  and 
the  natural  reference  is  to  the  wall  built  by  Nehemiah.  As 
Ezra  would  scarcely  say  a  wall  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  we  may 
best  omit  in  Judah  or  read  around  Jerusalem,  as  due  to  the 
Chronicler's  idea  that  Ezra  preceded  Nehemiah.  The  refer- 
ence to  the  building  of  the  wall  is  strong  support  for  the  true 
date  of  Ezra. — 10.  And  now  what  further  shall  we  say?  What 
follows  is  best  taken  as  the  answer  to  this  question.  All  that 
we  can  say  is  that  we  have  forsaken  thy  commandments], — 11. 
These  were  given  by  thy  servants  the  prophets].  The  quotations 
are  all  from  Dt.,  and  the  prophets  therefore  means  Moses.  On  this 
conception  of  the  prophetic  origin  of  the  law,  v.  OTJC.^°*  ^". 

What  follows  is  the  commandment  said  to  be  given  by  the  prophets; 
I  translate  it  all,  putting  in  quotation-marks  that  which  is  traceable: 


EZRA    7-10  335 

"The  land  which  you  go  in  to  possess  it"  (Dt.  7')  is  a  polluted  land, 
by  the  pollution  of  the  peoples  oj  the  lands,  by  their  abominations  in  that 
they  have  filled  it  from  end  to  end  with  their  uncleanness.  (12)  "And 
now  you  shall  not  give  your  daughters  to  their  sons  nor  shall  you  take  their 
daughters  for  your  sons"  (Dt.  7').  "And  you  shall  not  seek  their  peace 
and  their  good  forever"  (Dt.  23')  in  order  that  you  may  be  strong  and  eat 
the  good  of  the  land  and  possess  it  for  your  sons  forever.  All  direct  quo- 
tations are  from  Dt.  We  may  note  the  change  to  the  pi.  in  Ezr.,  but 
that  does  not  tell  the  whole  story,  for  otherwise  the  passage  abounds 
in  Deut.  phrases.  The  word  rendered  "abominations"  occurs  in  Dt. 
13  t.,  and  indicates  practices  of  aliens  which  are  forbidden  to  Israel. 
"Be  strong"  and  "possess  it"  are  frequent  in  Dt.  "The  good  of  the 
land"  in  the  sense  of  its  best  products  occurs  in  Gn.  45''- 2°  Is.  i". 
But  nowhere  in  the  Pentateuch  is  Palestine  called  a  polluted  land;  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  called  "a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey"  (Nu. 
13"  et  pass.),  "a  good  land,  a  land  of  brooks  of  water,"  etc.  (Dt.  8'  '•). 
Nevertheless  the  idea  is  found  in  Lv.  18'*-'",  where  the  land  is  called 
unclean  by  reason  of  the  abominations  practised  by  the  peoples  who 
preceded  Israel  in  its  occupation.  The  expression  from  end  to  end, 
lit.,  from  mouth  to  mouth,  is  found  in  2  K.  lo^'  21'^  On  the  other 
hand,  peoples  of  the  lands,  i.  e.,  foreigners,  is  characteristic  of  the  Chr. 
The  citation  is  made  up  of  Deut.  phrases  patched  together  loosely  and 
with  the  insertion  of  a  free  adaptation  of  a  passage  from  Lv.  But  it 
is  cited  as  a  divine  command  given  by  the  prophets.  Ezra  is  thought 
to  have  carried  the  law-book  in  his  hand  and  should  have  been  able 
to  quote  literally;  and  the  particular  precept  which  was  so  flagrantly 
disobeyed  is  quoted  lit.  enough  (against  intermarriage),  and  the  state- 
ment about  the  land  is  made  to  reinforce  the  danger  of  marital  alliance. 
By  marrying  foreign  women  the  abominations  which  have  made  the 
land  unclean  will  adhere  to  Israel.  The  whole  passage  (from  saying) 
seems  to  show  the  Chr.'s  hand. 

13.  And  after  all  that  has  befallen  us  because  of  our  evil  deeds 
and  our  great  guilt].  The  sentence  is  left  in  the  air;  the  con- 
nection with  what  follows  is  only  made  by  violence.  The 
reference  is  to  the  exile  which  resulted  from  the  evil  deeds  of 
pre-exilic  Israel.  We  must  go  back  to  v.  ^'"'  to  get  sense :  we  have 
transgressed  thy  commandments  which  thou  didst  command  by  thy 
servants,  the  prophets,  and  all  that  has  come  upon  us  [has  come] 
because  of  our  evil  deeds  and  our  great  guilt,  i.  e.,  in  the  transgres- 
sion stated  in  v.  ^°^. — For  thou,  0  our  God,  reckonest  our  sins  down- 
wards]. Determined  to  extract  sense,  this  is  usually  interpreted 
"punished  less  than  our  iniquities  deserve."     Esd,  reads:  for 


336  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

thou,  O  Lord,  art  he  tvho  lightenest  our  sins;  this  makes  sense, 
but  requires  some  correction  of  the  text.  (&  has  a  much  longer 
passage :  for  thou,  O  our  God,  hast  taken  away  our  sceptre  because 
of  our  sins,  and  it  is  not  like  thee;  for  thou  lightenest  our  sins. 
This  would  connect  fairly  well  with  v. ",  and  with  the  following, 
and  givest  us  a  remnant,  or  with  d  deliverance.  Good  sense  is 
obtained  by  two  slight  emendations :  and  now  thou  hast  withheld 
the  rod  from  our  sins,  and  hast  given  us  deliverance. — 14.  Yet  we 
have  again  broken  thy  commandments  atid  intermarried  with  the 
peoples  of  these  lands].  Yet  as  (H  is  better  than  the  interrogative 
of  ^■,  for  the  intermarriage  was  an  accomplished  fact. — Wilt  thou 
not  be  angry  with  us  to  a  finish,  without  residue  or  remnant  ?]  This 
very  awkward  passage  is  much  smoother  in  Esd. :  Wilt  thou  not 
be  angry  [enough]  to  destroy  us  until  there  is  left  neither  root  nor 
seed  nor  fiame. — 15.  Thou  art  righteous]  or  innocent,  or  truthful 
(Esd.).  The  punishment  which  Israel  had  endured  was  not 
due  to  the  injustice  of  God;  for  the  people  had  richly  deserved 
their  woes.  Then  the  supplicant  reverts  to  the  present  con- 
dition: we  are  left  [but]  a  remnant  this  day]. — The  future  can  be 
read  from  the  past  which  has  been  in  review,  and  the  outlook 
is  gloomy:  behold  we  are  before  thee  in  our  guilt].  The  same  con- 
ditions which  destroyed  early  Israel  are  prevalent  now;  there- 
fore the  conclusion  is  inevitable :  it  is  not  possible  to  stand  before 
thee  in  this  matter].  If  the  guilt  of  Israel  persists,  their  life  will 
be  short.    The  future  depends  upon  strict  obedience  to  the  law. 

This  prayer  was  evidently  intended  to  produce  an  effect  upon  the 
audience  rather  than  upon  God,  perhaps  like  many  other  public  prayers. 
Ezra  waited  until  a  considerable  congregation  had  assembled  before 
he  began  to  pray.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  prayer  shows  the  desire 
to  touch  the  heart  of  the  guilty  and  to  impel  them  to  abandon  the 
course  of  life  which  seemed  so  evil.  Sieg.  regards  the  prayer  as  "a 
verbal  extract  from  Ezra's  memoirs."  Torrey  ascribes  the  whole  to 
the  Chr.  There  are  some  words  characteristic  of  the  Chr.  even  if  we 
cannot  accept  all  of  Torrey's  list  {Comp.^^  '■).  Further,  there  are  sev- 
eral awkward  phrases  and  constructions  more  like  the  Chr.  than  E. 
It  is  quite  prob.  that  the  passage  has  suffered  in  part  from  doubt  about 
obscure  words  and  in  part  from  the  Chr.'s  retouching.  Nevertheless, 
the  substance  of  the  prayer  is  so  appropriate  to  a  pr.  zealous  for  the 
law,  profoundly  believing  that  the  fate  of  the  new  Israel  depended  upon 


EZRA  7-10  337 

its  observance,  and  shrewd  in  his  devices  for  securing  adherence  to  it, 
that  we  must  admit  the  great  cleverness  of  the  Chr.,  or  hold  that  we 
have  substantially  the  genuine  prayer  of  Ezra.  The  latter  is  surely 
the  simpler  alternative.  We  must,  however,  excise  vv.  "b-  n,  which 
are  due  to  the  Chr. 

1-5  in  Esd.L  is  in  the  third  p.  throughout,  having  tu  Ei;8pa  for 
'Sx.  Other  texts  of  Esd.  lack  all  sf .  of  the  first  p. — 1 .  Sn-ib"  oyn]  is, 
of  course,  not  original.  VVe  might  explain  hi<•^^■y•'  as  an  explanatory  gl., 
or  drop  the  art. — aninnyo]  is  without  construction.  (Sba  has  sv  y.<xv.- 
p6[x[j.afftv,  a  word  used  only  here  and  v. "  in  05.  Esd.  renders  prep. 
dxo;  the  latter  offers  a  variant:  oux  Ix^ptaocv  xal  o\  a'pxovrsc;  v.od  ol 
iepEl<;  xaX  ol  Aeuelxott  xal  dtXXoyev^  sOvtj  tt)?  y^?  (dtxb)  dxotOapafa?  auxoiv. 
Ai-  show  a  correction  from  ll^,  inserting  -zh  e6vo<;  tou  'IapaT)X  after  xat-. 
I-  has  ixb  Twv  aXXoyevwv  sGvwv,  while  ^  has  ixb  twv  sOvwv  in  place  of 
auTwv.  3  Esd.  has  a  still  further  amplification :  non  segregaverunt  genus 
Israel  et  pHncipes  el  sacerdoles  el  Levilce  el  alienigence  genles  el  naliones 
terrce  immundilias  snas  a  ChanancBts,  etc.  The  evidence  is  very  strong 
in  favour  of  reading  OTX-in  or  some  word  of  similar  mng.  instead  of  3j."n 
"j". — "iDNn]  Esd.  lSou[j.aiwv. — 2.  lanj'nn]  (|ba  xczp^qxOt)  =  naj?;  auvepLtyTji', 
IxepifYirj  Esd.  All  Vrss.  have  a  sg.  vb.  with  "seed"  as  subj.  BDB. 
gives  six  roots,  but  wrongly  translates  here  "have  fellowship  with"; 
Ges.B  is  correct,  i.  e.,  "mix." — -im]  om.  Esd.  The  circumstantial 
clause  of  MT.  suggests  a  note  by  the  writer  rather  than  a  part  of  the 
charge.  V.  ^  in  Esd.  runs :  xal  ^lexzV^o'^  [iJLeTeffxov^^]  oX  icporjYoutievot  xal 
01  [XEYtuTavs?  ir\q  ivofifac;  tkuttjs  axb  ■z'qc,  dpx^?  xoO  xpaYtAaroq.  3  Esd. 
has  a  startling  text:  el  parlicipes  eranl  et  magislratus  iniquitatus  ejus 
ah  initio  ipsiiis  regni.  The  peculiar  construction  in  these  texts  shows 
that  we  should  rd.  nxrnn  pD,  corrupted  into  |nin  D-iiJOn,  and  mng.  "  the 
officer  of  lawlessness,"  the  one  whose  duty  was  to  restrain  all  kinds  of 
wrong-doing.  Then  Esd.  shows  ihidSd  prsiD,  the  last  word  a  corrup- 
tion of  nrn  Sys.  How  Dns'n  n^  became  parlicipes  era^it,  originally  par- 
licips  erat,  is  not  clear.  pD  is  from  As.  Saknu.  The  word  occurs  in 
the  Eleph.  pap.  in  connection  with  "judges,"  i.  e.,  pii  po  {PapJ^^^-  ", 
V.  Sachau,^^0- — 3.  iSiym]  eitaXX6[j,T)v  (&^^,  leap,  a  word  only  here  in 
C6,  but  in  Gn.  3i"'- 12  we  have  oiSyn,  mng.  leaped.  Esd.  T-fjv  Upav  ea- 
6^Ta,  so  v.  ^ — DDiS'c]  (S  Tjp£pL(it^wvB,  Ipsfxat^wvA,  T^pe^Awv  xal  GautJi'a^wvi', 
Esd.  auvvoui;  xal  TcsptXuTCoq. — 4.  Tin]  (6  oiwxwvBA^  ev-upofAO?  xal  sxc- 
Stdixwvi-,  showing  originally  05  and  a  correction  from  MT.  Esd.  exs- 
xevouvToBi-  (a.  X.  in  LXX),  to  which  A  prefixes  t^TQXwTat  xa(. — nai]  X6yov 
C5,  pT)iJ.aTtE9d.^  so  rd.  nan. — rh^n  Vyn  Sy]  Esd.  e[i.ou  [auxoui-]  xsveoOvro? 
Ixl  xfi  dtvoijif?,  so  SjjD  Sy  SaNPD  >jni  (Guthe). — 5.  .  .  ''yipai]  Esd.  Scep- 
pTJYliiva  Ix*'*'*'  "r*  l(Xi4Tta  xal  T-f)v  lepav  sffOijTa. — anyn  nnjD2i]  om.  Esd. — 
'n'jync]  Esd.  ex  ttj?  vTrjaxefa?  =  oixn. — lana-Sj;  njriDNi]  Esd.  xiijul/a?  xi 
')f6vaTa. — '"hSn]  om.  Esd. 


338  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

6.  n-\DN]  clirov  (&^,  Esd.  elxsv^,  zXe-(Qv^^,  but  3  Esd.  dicebam. — 'nSn] 
om.  (gB,  so  Esd.  7.upteAL.— a'-in*^]  om.  Esd.— '^Sn^]  om.  »  Esd.— T'Sn  >}s] 
Esd.  xan:i  xp6a(i)TC6v  ao-j  =  TJ3-^y. — B-xi  nSjJcS]  an  expression  occur- 
ring nowhere  else.     (5  uxi?  xeyaXrjc;  -fjiJLwvBAj  j„j^p  5v(i>l,  Esd.  xe^aXdi;^*, 
uTclp  T(i<;  Tpfxa?  '^ti<;  xeyoeX-^c;  TjiiaJvi-.    The  evidence  is  convincing  for 
Uiyxn.     The  presence  of  -rpfxa?  =  "^^^  in  ^  is  interesting;  by  modify- 
ing a  little  more  we  get  good  sense,  /.  e.,  u'^nt  nnya'D,  cf.  Ps.  69', 
TNT  nnjJtt'O  lan.     No  one  seems  to  have  noticed  the  important  text  of 
L,  though  every  one  sees  the  difliculty.     Torrey  rendered  riSynS,  "ex- 
ceedingly" (cf.  I  Ch.  23I')  and  explains  ti'N^  as  due  to  dittog.  (Comp.^^, 
ES.'")' — "^  •  l^''^''^]  ^  o't  ulol  Tj^Awv^A^  rj[  tepsi?  -rjixoJv  /.al  o'i  xivreq  YltAwvi-; 
Esd.  aiv  Tolq  dSsXqjoIi;  tjjjlwv,  ctuv  toT?  ^aatXsuatv  "fjtiwv,  xal  auv  TOti;  Ispeu- 
ffiv  Tjfjiwv.     i:njN]  is  here  rd.  as  irnN,  3  Esd.  cz<;;?.  fratribus  nosiris,  et 
Slim  sacerdotibus  nostrls.    By  an  eclectic  process  I  would  restore  the 
text  thus:  irj3i  ^yr\ii^  %y^3  unj.     irSa  became  ^y2^^2,  ^ynn  became  unjN, 
and  irja  became  irjna. — T^a]  lacking  in  Esd.;    C^  ev  x^P'^^  ('■'''3). — 
msixn]  (jg  TTcJv  eOvwv,  Esd.  ttji;  yfiq. — o^jfj]  lacking  in  Esd.,  (S  xpoatoxou 
7)[i.d)v  =  ViD. — nrn  DvnD]  Esd.  [xl/pt  -rii?  aTit^epov  Tj^jLlpcti;,  a  better  sense 
and  prob.  from  ovn^. — 8.  (S  offers  variant  for  the  awkward  begin- 
ning of  MT. :  xal  vOv  sxeffxeuciffaTo  -fjii-Iv  6  6£b<;  t)iiwv,  z.  e.,  uS  pin  n.-iyi 
irnV.s.    L  adds  w?  ^paxu.     B  reads:  e/  «?wc  quasi  parum  et  ad  momen- 
tum facia  est  deprecatio  nostra  apud  Dominum  Deiim  nostrum;  3  Esd.  et 
nunc  quantum  est  hoc,  quod  conligil  nobis  misericordia  abs  te  Domine 
Deus. — ^V^P  ■  . .  liNii'n'^].     Esd.  xataXetcpOfjvat  ^(j.tv  pti^ocv  xal  ovoyLa  Iv  Ttji 
TOTCw  Tou  [toutwB]  aYtaSfxaTO?  [+  au-roui-].     H  relinque  nobis  radicum  et 
nomen  in  locum  sanctificationis  tna.     We  must,  at  all  eventS;  get  rid 
of  the  inappropriate  in\     (g  has  CTTT)piY[a](jia,  which  elsw.  stands  for 
nan.     Esd.  may  have  rd.  13J  "posterity." — u*?  nnS]  would  scarcely  be 
used  here  in  view  of  Mr\Th,  v.  ^  M^^^i<  .  .  .  n^xnS]  (6  lacks  u^hSn,  the 
least  possible  emendation.     Esd.  has :  ToCi  avaxaXu(];at  ipwaTfipa  -Jjiicov  Iv 
Tw  oVxtfj  ToG  xupfou   TjiAwv  =  irnSs  r-'22  1J11ND  rnSjS. — D>'0  .thd]  CS  ?wo- 
xofv^atv  ixixpczvB,    xepcxodrjaav^,    Esd.    Tpo^-Jjv   Iv  Ty   xatpw   TTJt;    SouXsta? 
Tjfiwv;  B  cibum  in  omni  tejnpore  servitentis  nostrcB. — ^oj?d]  cannot  be  an 
adj.  as  (&  and  EV^  render;  "a  little  sustenance"  would  be  ninn  toyn. 
Therefore  substitute  with  Esd.  n>'3. — n>nD]  can  scarcely  mean  rcwV 
ing,  RV.  BDB.    It  indicates  that  which  supports  life,  so  food,  as  Ju. 
54  iyio_ — 9,  (§L  Iv  .jj^  xotpa^diaet  •iiyiwv  sv  ^  xapi^TjfAev  -fiEieti;,  connecting 
unjN  Dn3j7  'D  with  ijm3>'3  of  v.  '.    This  reading  avoids  the  monotonous 
repetition  of  "in  our  servitude."    Esd.  has  ev  t^  SouXeuetv  ^[>.&<;,  read- 
ing 1J13;'3,  and  lacking  ijm3>'3i. — uiaj?]  is  rd.  as  Pu.  in  Esd.  lyxare- 
XsifieT)[iev. — irnSs']  preceded  in  (&  by  xupio?,  Esd    xupfou  "Otiiov;    Gk. 
and  1^  often  disagree  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names;  Esd.  is  the  work 
of  a  pretty  consistent  Yahwist. — .  .  .  tO"]  Esd.  Ixofrjuev  Tj^jiai;  ev  x<4ptTc  =* 
]r\2  ir!£Ti. — '^'nn  i:S  nnS]  Esd.i-  SoOvat  V'v  IXeov  (ion). — nnnV]  (g  to5 
StJ^fiiaat  aiTou?,  mistaking  Polel  for  Qal  with  sf.;  Esd.  xal  Zo^&aai  lapbv 


EZRA    7-10  339 

'Jjpi.wv. — vnain],  Esd.  T-f)v  spTj(j.ov  St'tov,  3  Esd.  (sdificare  deserla  Sion  = 
tvs  na^^. — nj]  $  (pp(ZY(J.6v"AN^  Teixo<;L,  cT£pl(OEJ.aE»<i.  (y>pi),  3  Esd.  iia- 
bilitatem. — "31  mino]  is  supported  by  all  Vrss.,  j'et  we  might  better 
rd.  "S  3>3D2,  ».  s. — 10.  nnpi]  lacking  in  (Sban. — pNr  nnx]  Esd.  Sxovrsg 
TKuxa,  (S  [iSTd:  touto. — iJ3'i']  Esd.  icapl^TjaotvB,  xapi^TjiAevAL^  j'.  g.^  ij^3>'. 
— 11.  nniix]  ?5wxa^  <S  and  Esd. — I'lay]  om.  CS^-. — .  .  .  nsc]  to  end  of 
V.  is  lacking  in  Esd. — 13.  ^inN]  om.  Esd. — U''^"]  C5  e?'  u[Jia<;^,  and  con- 
sistently second  p.  in  v.".  V.  •'  is  amplified  in  C&L;  g^^;  ^^  ^  q^^^  tJtAwv, 
r.aTSTCOEUffaq  Tb  ax^iuTpov  ■fjyiuv  Sta  Tii(;  ayiapTtat;  ■fjjJ.wv,  xal  oux,  eattv  ax;  au, 
OT'.  exoiiptaa?  tac;  dvotifac;  T)y''<^v,  xat  eSwxaq  Tjpitv  ux6Xei[it'-2'-  Esd.  has: 
<su  ydp,  x6ptc,  6  xoucptffas  ■zsc;  ajAapTias  -Qtxwv  e3a)xa<;  T][itv  xotauTYjv  ^t^av. 
CIS  has  rd.  nap  riau'n  for  n-jr:"?  PDrn,  a  very  slight  change.  Esd.  shows 
mm,  but  not  nacS.  (S  therefore  shows  a  dup.,  but  (B^^  represents  an 
approximation  to  Esd. :  our.  ssTtv  w;  0  6sb<;  "fjiJLwv,  oxt  exo6?taa<;  yjhwv  ra? 
dtvotx(a<;  xal  sSwxa?  tjiaIv  awTTQpiav  (/.  e.,  nyia'i).  It  is  possible  that  one 
of  two  similar  passages  has  been  lost.  This  text  is  entirely  ignored 
by  Guthe. — 14.  3it:'jn]  better  with  (6  13  for  n  interrogative. — "n  icyn] 
<S  Tols  Xaoti;^^'  +  i^w'''  T'''"Ji>'^'^  4"  toutwvI-,  Esd.  t^  <i/.a8apa[(jt  twv  iQvdv 
T^i;  Y^?,  z.  c,  napjia. — n'^an  rri-\Nn  ^c>"].  For  consistency  we  find  sxt- 
{Aty^vac  =  (aiynns)  in  Esd.,  where  (B  has  ^atJi^psOffac  (=  innnn). — —\y 
.  .  .  nSs]  Esd.  ixoXiffat  TQ^jia?  ew<;  toO  [jlt)  xaxaXtxelv  pfl^av  xal  ax^pfjia  xal 
Svo[j.a  Tjtiwv  =  "INCH  I'nS  ny  u.-iiSs. — 15.  ujn]  om.  (S''. — P'-^^i]  Esd.  dXr)- 
Gtv6q. — ovnj]  Esd.  Iv  Tfi  orjiJiepov  =  orna. — na-^'^s]  may  be  construed  as 
an  ace.  or  as  appos.  with  the  subj.  of  the  vb.  (Ges.^ "'). 

10'"*  =  Esd.  S^*'-9\  The  people  agree  to  divorce  the  for- 
eign wives. 

Ezra's  praying  and  loud  weeping  attracts  a  very  large  crowd.  Shek- 
aniah  admits  that  Israel  has  done  wrong  and  proposes  that  the  offend- 
ers shall  be  put  under  oath  to  cast  out  their  foreign  wives  and  the  chil- 
dren born  from  them.  Ezra  accepts  the  plan  and  a  decree  is  issued 
ordering  all  Israel  to  convene  within  three  days  under  penalty  of  con- 
fiscation and  excommunication.  The  narrative  is  now  in  the  third  p. 
as  in  7'-'''.    This  form  continues  in  the  rest  of  the  Ezra  story. 

1.  And  while  Ezra  was  praying  and  while  he  was  making  con- 
fession, weeping  and  prostrating  himself  before  the  house  of  God]. 
The  language  is  exhausted  to  show  Ezra's  deep  distress.  Here 
for  the  first  time  a  place  is  indicated ;  the  priest  offered  his  public 
prayer  in  the  open  space  before  the  temple. — From  Israel]  or 
more  appropriately  with  Esd.,  from  Jerusalem,  since  the  crowd 
could  hardly  come  from  all  Judah. — Men  and  women  and  chil- 


340  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

dreu],  or  boys  and  girls,  or  children  and  slaves,  as  some  Greek 
texts  have  in  place  of  children.  (On  the  place  of  the  assembly  in 
postexilic  Israel  v.  Smith,  Jcr.  i,  c.  x.). — For  the  people  wept  with  a 
great  weeping]  is  scarcely  intelligible  as  a  reason  for  the  vast  as- 
sembly. We  have  heard  only  of  Ezra's  weeping  heretofore.  It 
is  a  loose  construction :  the  writer  apparently  meant  that  Ezra's 
tears  were  contagious,  and  that  the  multitude  began  to  weep  as 
it  gathered.  This  verse  quite  ignores  the  assembly  already  col- 
lected, 9";  the  terms  are  different  here,  the  crowd  being  of  a  more 
general  composition. — 2.  Then  answered  Shekaniah].  "Answer" 
is  used  idiomatically  in  Hebrew  to  introduce  a  statement  made, 
not  as  a  reply  to  a  spoken  word,  but  with  reference  to  an  act 
upon  which  the  answer  is  a  comment.  Shekaniah  is  classed  here 
among  the  sons  of  Elam,  and  there  was  such  a  clan  in  Ezra's 
company,  8^.  This  may  be  a  man  of  royal  descent,  a  son  of  Je- 
hoiakim,  i  Ch.  3^*  f-. — There  is  hope  for  Israel  in  regard  to  this], 
i.  e.,  something  can  be  done  to  rectify  the  wrong. — By  the 
counsel  of  the  Lord].  The  plan  is  Shekaniah's,  for  there  was  no 
law  ordering  a  divorce  in  such  cases.  The  Vrss.  vary  greatly; 
Esd.  has:  as  it  seemeth  good  to  thee,  making  far  better  sense. — 
And  they  who  treynble  at  the  command  of  our  God]  is  quite  with- 
out connection. 

The  ordinary  rendering  is  secured  by  changing  "the  Lord"  to  "my 
lord,"  and  thus  getting:  at  the  counsel  of  my  lord  [i.  e.,  Ezra]  and  of  those 
who  tremble  at  the  command  of  God.  In  9^  there  gathered  about  Ezra 
at  the  beginning  "all  who  trembled  at  the  words  of  the  God  of  Israel." 
The  rendering  cited  would  make  them  a  party  to  the  pr.'  plan,  and 
would  put  the  proposal  for  divorce  in  his  mouth.  In  his  prayer  he  had 
suggested  no  drastic  remedy;  in  fact,  it  seems  that  he  left  it  entirely 
to  others  to  advise  the  heroic  course  to  be  followed.  If  this  reading 
were  accepted,  two  slight  changes  should  be  made  so  as  to  get:  ace. 
to  the  counsel  of  my  lord  .  .  .  and  ace.  to  the  law  of  Moses,  reading  ncn 
for  riti^y\  There  are  several  variants  for  "those  who  tremble,"  etc.; 
C5  reads :  stand  iip  and  make  them  tremble  at  the  command  of  our  God; 
Esd.^:  and  as  many  as  obeyed  the  law  of  the  Lord,  standing  up,  said  to 
Ezra,  rise,  act.  Though  this  breaks  off  Shekaniah's  speech  suddenly, 
it  is  prob.  the  best  text  we  have.  Let  it  be  done  according  to  the  law],  but 
while  the  law  forbade  the  mixed  marriages,  it  did  not,  unless  by  in- 
ference, provide  for  their  dissolution. 


EZRA    7-10  341 

4.  The  matter  is  upon  thee]  or  belongs  to  thee,  a  recognition 
of  Ezra's  leadership  in  the  matter. — And  we  are  with  thee]  a 
pledge  of  the  speaker's  support  in  the  righting  of  the  wrong. 
— Take  courage  aiid  act]  an  appeal  to  Ezra  as  if  he  needed  urg- 
ing.— 5.  And  Ezra  rose  and  adjured]  but  whom?  The  text  has 
the  leaders  of  the  priests,  Levites  and  of  all  Israel,  making  the  Le- 
vites  equivalent  to  priests.  Ci»  has :  the  leaders,  the  Levites  and  all 
Israel  ;  the  leaders  of  the  Judean  priests  and  of  the  Levites  and  all 
Israel}^.  By  a  single  change  we  get  the  best  text :  the  leaders  of 
the  priests  and  of  the  Levites  and  of  all  Israel.  The  leaders  alone 
were  required  to  take  the  oath  to  carry  out  Shekaniah's  plan. — ■ 
And  they  took  the  oath],  i.  e.,  the  leaders  just  named,  thus  be- 
coming a  party  to  the  solemn  covenant  with  God,  v.  ^ — 6 . 
And  Ezra  arose  from  before  the  house  of  God]  where  he  had  been 
prostrating  himself,  v.  ^,  and  where  this  verse  presupposes 
that  he  is  still,  ignoring  v.  ^  altogether,  evidence  of  disorder  in 
the  text. — And  he  went  to  the  room  of  Jehohanan],  one  of  the 
quarters  in  the  temple  cloisters  in  which  the  temple  officers 
lived.  For  Jehohanan  v.  Ne.  12^°  f-.  Our  text  gives  no  hint  as 
to  the  reason  for  Ezra's  going  to  those  quarters.  In  Esd.  we 
find  the  right  reading;  instead  of  the  repeated  and  he  went  there, 
we  have:  and  he  spent  the  night  there.  Ezra's  prayer  had  been 
offered  at  the  time  of  the  evening  oblation,  9^  The  events 
which  had  taken  place  meanwhile  carry  us  down  to  nightfall, 
and  next  we  are  told  of  Ezra's  temporary  lodging-place.  The 
business  was  urgent  and  he  remained  upon  the  ground  until  its 
completion. — Bread  he  did  not  eat  and  water  he  did  not  drink,  i.  e., 
overnight;  fasting  enters  largely  into  the  religious  life  of  the 
people  of  this  period  (Sta.^'"),  and  becomes  more  prominent 
later  {cf.  Est.). — For  he  was  mourning  for  the  sins  of  the  captivity] 
cf.  Dt.  9^^;  in  place  of  "the  sins  of  the  captivity,"  cf.  g*,  Esd. 
has  the  great  sins  of  the  exalted  ones,  or  of  the  multitude.  Sieg. 
by  a  slight  change  reads:  "for  the  great  sin."  If  MT.  is  right, 
"captivity"  designates  the  new  community,  conceived  as  wholly 
composed  of  returned  exiles.  The  phrase  betrays  the  Chron- 
icler, to  whom  the  Judeans  and  the  golah  are  one. — 7.  And  they 
[the  leaders  and  elders  of  v.  *]  issued  a  proclamation  in  Judah  and 


342  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Jerusalem  to  all  the  sons  of  the  captivity  to  gather  at  Jerusalem]. 
The  assembly  was  to  be  general  and  was  to  carry  out  the  agree- 
ment subscribed  by  the  oath  of  the  leaders. — 8.  A)id  all  who  did 
not  arrive  within  three  days].  The  short  time  allowed  shows  the 
narrow  bounds  of  the  new  commimity  (Berth.). — According 
to  the  command  of  the  leaders  and  elders].  This  supplies  the 
missing  subject  in  v.  ^.  Ezra  himself  was  much  in  the  back- 
ground. He  was  impelling  the  rulers  to  act. — A  severe  penalty 
was  to  be  imposed  upon  those  who  did  not  comply  with  the 
edict;  the  punishment  would  be  twofold:  all  his  property  should 
be  confiscated  and  he  should  be  separated  from  the  assembly  of  the 
captivity],  i.  e.,  excommunicated.  The  word  rendered  "confis- 
cated" means  put  iDider  a  religious  ban,  devote,  and  property  so 
devoted  was  to  be  destroyed,  Jos.  6^^  Dt.  20^*^.  But  the  word 
here  probably  means  confiscated  to  sacred  uses,  as  for  the  support 
of  the  temple. 

The  authority  for  the  edict,  and  which  undertook  to  punish  heavily 
those  who  disobeyed  it,  was  not  that  of  Ezra,  but  of  the  oligarchy, 
"the  leaders  and  elders,"  v.  '.  Indeed,  in  the  whole  passage,  barring 
the  single  expression  "the  matter  is  upon  thee,"  there  is  no  hint  of 
any  authority  vested  in  Ezra.  He  does  not  even  evolve  a  plan  to  right 
the  wrong  which  distresses  him,  and  he  administers  an  oath  to  bind 
the  leaders  to  execute  the  plan  proposed  by  Shekaniah.  Ezra  shows 
fervent  zeal,  a  passion  for  the  law,  an  eloquence  in  prayer,  but  not  a 
shred  of  authority  to  enforce  his  ideas. 

1.  ?BJnDi]  (g  xpoasu^oy^svos^'^',  thus  repeating  SSsPC. — a-'HSun-no] 
Esd.  here  as  often  elsw.  toG  Ispoij. — SxTi"'c]  Esd.  axb  'lepouaaXTjti.. — 
Snp]  (§  exxXTjata,  Esd.  ox^os,  v.  on  v.  «. — DnV]  ®l  and  Esd.i-  veavtai 
xal  TcatSapta  =  a'i>Ul  onS\ — n;3  .  .  .  '^J  (5  o-zi  sxXauasv  6  Xxhc;  xat  'j'J^waev 
xXaiwv^AN'^  g.ct  /.Xau6ii(i>  y-syaXcp  ijcXauaev  6  "kxoq^,  Esd.  xXauOiJibs  T^^P 
T]v  [Alya?  £v  TiT)  -zXifiei,  3  Esd.  flctiis  enim  erat  magnus  in  ipsa  midtitu- 
dine. — 2.  a'^i>"]  Esd. 'IjpaTjX. — yi>:]  (S  sxaGtaaixevBA  (=  j-^",  "to  dwell"), 
eXipotisv**!-,  Esd.  xaTt^jxryaav^,  auva)x;ja[i£vA,  xaTC[)x(ffa[X£vL.  Xhe  mng. 
marry  is  peculiar  to  Ezr.-Ne.,  but  the  usage  is  so  frequent  (7  t.)  that 
the  text  can  scarcely  be  distrusted.  This  mng.  is  derived  from  the 
idea  of  giving  a  house  in  connection  with  marriage.  But  in  Esd.  9' 
(=  Ezr.  lo'")  we  have  (juvotxYjaars  yuva^fv.  The  idea,  therefore,  may  be 
"cohabit,"  the  prep,  which  would  naturally  follow  being  dropped  idio- 
matically.— nipcj  (S  uTCO|j.ovi^BAK^  iXtaiq^,  Esd.  sxivo)  ici^  'Io.ba  =  nSya 
'C'Sa. — 3-  nna]  Esd.    6pxw^oa(a. — ^^v:]   -j-yv*ixa;  xk^  iXXoxptati;  (5S 


EZRA    7-10  343 

Esd.  Yuvaiy.at;  :f)[xwv  tocs  £5t  t^wv  aXXoyevwy  eOvwv,  a  necessary  qualifica- 
tion.— 2rir3  iVjni]  Esd.  auv  Tsxvotc;  aurwv  ==  innS'^a. — .  .  .  nr;2]  <g  iic,  Sv 
PoijXt)  avaaxTjOi  xal  ^o^^ptaov  ajxoucjBA^  Esd.  d)?  exp{6irj  ooi  xaX  8aot  -rcet- 
Oapxi^tioGatv.  (^  shows  oinnn,  Esd.  ipsa';  Esd.i-  has  a  noteworthy  vari- 
ant: xal  ooot  X£i6apxot3ot  tw  vdyLu  xupt'ou  ivajxivres  elxov  icpbs  "E!^pav 
Aviaxa,  extxIXst.  This  reading  is  accepted  by  Guthe;  :;.  his  text. — 
niS3]  05  EVToXal;,  Esd.  vofiou,  ff.  9'°. — n::'j?>  n-nnj]  ^  d>;  6  v6[Jios  Yevt)- 
Gi^Tto^A,  om.  Esd.BA. — 4.  -la^]  ^bavX  pfj^ta,  so  v.  ^;  Xdyoi;^,  but  pTJ^Aa, 
V. ';  Esd.  xpaytJ-a,  om.  v.  K  In  v.  ^  the  mng.  is  general,  e.  g.,  matter, 
but  specific  in  v.  ^,  plan. — p?n]  (gL,  dvSpt^ou,  act  like  a  man. — 6.  •\'^?^^ 
Dc]  is  an  impossible  ^edundanc3^  05^  omits  perhaps  from  a  critical 
motive.  Esd.  has  the  true  text :  aJXtaOsl^  Ixsl  =  o-'  ]^^'^,  so  most  mod- 
ern scholars. — ^n'^ijn  Vjj^]  Esd.  x.  avot«.tuv  x.  [AsyaXtov  xoO  xXtjOou?  = 
D^Snjn  3in  ^Vys.  Sieg.  translates  wegen  des  grossen  Vergehcns  =  S'^^n 
nSijn. — 7.  CS^A  om.  ''3'^  to  end  of  v. — 8.  o^jprm  ancn]  Esd.  x.  xpo- 
xa6ifjtJLdv<i)v  [a  word  peculiar  to  Esd.]  xpsa^ux^pwv;  3  Esd.  assidentium 
seniorum. 


10^*'  =  Esd.  9^"".  The  putting  away  of  the  foreign  wives 
and  of  their  children. 

Agreeably  to  the  call,  the  people  of  Judah  and  Benj.  assembled  on 
the  20th  day  of  the  gth  month  in  the  open  space  before  the  temple. 
Ezra  would  proceed  at  once  in  spite  of  the  magnitude  of  the  task  and 
the  storm  that  was  raging.  The  people,  however,  asked  that  oflScers 
be  appointed  from  each  city  to  whom  the  execution  of  the  plan  should 
be  committed.  Ezra  acceded  to  this  plea,  the  business  was  taken  in 
hand,  and  completed  at  the  end  of  the  year.  The  source  is  different 
from  vv. '-',  as  other  terms  are  used  for  the  same  ideas. 

9.  And  all  the  men  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  assembled].  The 
proclamation  was  issued  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem  according  to 
V.  ^.  The  difference  of  terms  is  one  of  the  numerous  signs  of  a 
different  source  in  this  section.  It  appears  that  the  threat  in 
V. '  was  effective,  as  the  response  is  declared  to  be  general,  the 
whole  people  gathering  without  exception. — On  the  20th  day  of  the 
gth  month],  i.  e.,  Kislev,  so  in  the  early  part  of  December.  Ezra 
had  been  in  Jerusalem,  therefore,  more  than  four  months;  but, 
as  the  material  has  come  down  to  us,  there  was  nothing  done  in 
this  time. — And  all  the  people  sat  in  the  plaza  of  the  house  of  God]. 
The  plaza  of  the  temple,  badly  rendered  "street"  in  AV.,  was 


344  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  open  space  before  the  water  gate,  Ne.  3^^  8*,  a  favourite 
place  for  assemblies.  The  number  of  people  was  not  as  great 
as  V.  *  would  imply,  for  there  could  not  have  been  a  large  space 
there. — Trembling  for  the  matter  and  because  of  the  rain]  is  a 
dubious  conjunction  of  ideas.  The  Vrss.  show  enough  discrep- 
ancy to  make  the  text  questionable.  Esd.  reads:  shivering  on 
account  oj  the  persistent  storm.  That  may  be  modified  slightly 
so  as  to  get  shivering  because  of  standing  in  the  rain. — 10 .  Ezra 
the  priest]  previously  called  the  priest  the  scribe,  7"  '•  ^S  </• 
Ne.  12^^;  but  the  duties  he  is  now  performing  are  not  scribal, 
and  so  that  title  does  not  appear;  "priest"  is  wanting  in  Esd., 
and  it  may  be  a  gloss. — To  add  to  the  guilt  of  Israel].  Esd.  to 
add  guilt  to  Israel.  By  the  violation  of  the  law  the  present  gen- 
eration was  increasing  the  already  large  record  of  national  sin. 
— 11.  Give  praise  to  Yahweh  the  God  of  our  fathers],  not  "your" 
fathers  as  MT.  "Our"  is  found  in  (S  and  Esd.  The  ground  for 
praise  is  not  very  apparent,  at  least  from  the  people's  stand- 
point. The  rendering  of  EV*.,  based  on  H,  "make  confession" 
is  impossible.  The  same  appeal  is  made  to  Achan,  Jos.  7^*, 
where  as  a  parallel  we  have  "give  glory."  The  author  of  this 
passage  seems  to  have  drawn  from  that  story.  The  idea  may 
be  that  praise  was  due  to  God  because  the  culprits  were  brought 
to  a  state  of  amendment. — ^The  double  demand  is  made:  sep- 
arate yourselves  from  the  nations  of  the  land  and  from  the  foreign 
women].  This  is  in  agreement  with  9*  '•,  cf.  Dt.  7'  '•.  The 
clauses  are  practically  synonymous,  the  former  being  somewhat 
broader.  The  Israelites  were  called  upon  to  cut  off  all  associa- 
tion with  the  aliens. — 12 .  Why  should  the  assembly  answer  in  a 
loud  voice?  and  why  should  that  be  emphasised?  It  may  be 
explained  as  a  Hebrew  usage  to  express  earnestness,  cf.  3^^ 
2  S.  1523  I  K.  8"  2  Ch.  151^  2019  Ez.  818  Lv.  17^^  But  (& 
preserves  an  interesting  variant:  and  all  the  assembly  answered 
and  said,  great  is  thy  demand  for  us  to  do,  i.  e.,  you  have  laid  a 
heavy  burden  upon  us.— 13.  But  the  people  are  many  and  the 
season  is  stormy].  The  assembly  was  ready  to  meet  the  leaders' 
demands,  but  the  conditions  made  it  impossible;  there  were  too 
many  cases  and  the  weather  was  too  bad.    "A  time  of  much 


EZR.\  7-IO  345 

rain"  (EV.)  is  based  on  B  and  gives  a  wrong  idea,  viz.,  that 
the  day  was  too  wet.  The  people  say  rather,  "it  is  the  rainy 
season,"  and  the  rains  therefore  will  persist.  It  was  the  period 
of  the  winter  rains,  called  "the  former  rain"  in  Dt.  ii^^,  see 
Nowack,  Arch,  i,*^  '■. — We  are  not  able  to  stand  without]  is  based 
on  the  rendering  of  the  ancient  Vrss.,  especially  Esd.  But  "we" 
does  not  appear  in  If,  and  the  idea  is :  it  is  not  fit  to  stand  out- 
side, on  account  of  the  rain.  Ezra's  zeal  was  not  dependent 
upon  the  weather. — For  we  have  transgressed  very  much  in  this 
respect],  corresponding  to  "the  people  are  many";  the  number 
who  had  married  foreigners  was  relatively  very  large. 

14 .  This  V.  contains  the  counter-proposal  of  the  people,  but  the  text 
is  very  troublesome;  we  may  render:  Lei  now  our  leaders  stand  for  the 
whole  assembly,  and  let  all  who  are  in  our  cities  that  have  married  foreign 
women  come  at  appoittted  times;  and  with  them  elders  of  each  city  and  its 
judges,  unto  the  averting  from  us  of  the  fury  of  the  wrath  of  our  God  in  re- 
gard to  this  matter].  In  the  latter  part  esp.  we  find  obscurity  and  bad 
constructions,  greater  in  the  original  than  in  this  translation.  ®  varies 
considerably  in  detail.  Esd.  runs:  and  let  the  leaders  of  the  assembly 
stand,  and  let  all  from  our  homes  who  have  foreign  wives  be  at  hand  when 
opportunity  serves;  and  the  elders  and  judges  of  each  place  until,  etc. 
3  Esd.  gives  a  connection  for  the  last  clause:  and  let  the  elders  and  judges 
from  each  place  assist,  but  it  lacks  a  pred.  for  all  who  have  foreign  wives- 
We  get  little  help  from  these  sources;  the  ancients  were  puzzled  by  the 
passage,  and  their  difficulties  appear  in  their  translation.  The  mng. 
apparently  is  that  (i)  leaders  should  take  charge  of  the  business  for 
the  whole  assembly;  (2)  to  this  tribunal  all  transgressors  should  come 
at  appointed  times  {cf.  Ne.  lo'O;  (3)  with  the  guilty  should  appear 
the  local  elders  and  judges.  The  function  of  the  local  officers  is  left  to 
conjecture;  it  is  natural  to  suppose,  however,  that  their  office  was  to 
see  that  the  decrees  of  the  tribunal  were  carried  out.  From  the  emph. 
laid  on  these  officers  Sm.  argues  that  most  of  the  offenders  were  in- 
habitants of  the  country  districts  (Listen,").  It  appears  that  the  di- 
vorce court  sat  in  Jerus.  and  that  all  proceedings  took  place  there. 
For  "until,"  etc.,  we  should  rd. :  in  order  to  turn  away  from  us  the 
fury  of  the  wrath  of  our  God. — 15.  This  v.  contains,  a  sore  puzzle. 
But  by  an  emendation  of  the  text  on  the  basis  of  (5  we  discover  a  frag- 
ment of  E.  and  evidence  of  decided  opposition  to  the  divorce.  As  it 
stands  in  MT.  two  opposing  constructions  have  been  put  upon  the 
v.:  (i)  We  may  translate:  But  Jonathan  the  son  of  Asahel  and  Jo- 
haziah  the  son  of  Tikvah  stood  over  this,  and  Meshullam  and  Shabbethai 


346  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

the  Lev.  aided  them,  so  AV.  Esd.  Michaelis,  Kue.  and  many  of  the  older 
interpreters.  The  rang,  would  then  be  that  the  four  men  named  con- 
stituted the  divorce  tribunal.  But  that  rendering  must  be  pronounced 
impossible.  For  (a)  v. "  connects  directly  with  v.  '<;  (b)  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  court  is  described  in  v. '«;  (c)  the  introductory  tn  has  a 
restrictive  not  a  continuative  sense;  (d)  the  circumstantial  clause  shows 
that  this  V.  cannot  describe  the  execution  of  the  plan  previously  pro- 
posed, but  must  be  an  attendant  circumstance.  (2)  Instead  of  "stood 
over"  we  may  render  loy  stood  against,  a  late  usage  found  in  Lv. 
19"  I  Ch.  211  2  Ch.  20='  Dn.  8"  11'^  (see  Moore's  7z<Jge5,'").  The 
mng.  then  is  that  these  four  men  stood  in  opposition  to  the  ruthless 
proceedings.  This  idea  we  find  in  RV.  Lightfoot,  B.-Rys.  Ryle,  Sieg. 
Berth.  Ges.^,  BDB.  The  construction  fits  in  finely  with  this  idea; 
but  we  find  i7:>'  used  in  opposite  senses  in  two  successive  vv.  It  is 
plain,  therefore,  that  if  this  is  the  right  mng.  the  two  vv.  are  not  from 
the  same  hand.  To  express  his  mng.  the  author  would  have  used  a 
common  and  umnistakable  word,  Dip.  The  authorities  have  quite  dis- 
regarded the  reading  of  (8 :  only  Jonathan  et  al.  were  with  me  in  this 
matter.  This  text  requires  but  an  infinitesimal  change  in  ^.  But  can 
we  get  any  sense  out  of  that?  With  me  would,  of  course,  mean  with 
Ezra. 

Now  it  is  a  commonly  accepted  theory  that  c.  10  is  the  Chr.'s  re- 
vision of  E.  In  most  places  the  original  has  been  revised  beyond  recog- 
nition. But  here  we  may  have  a  scrap  which  escaped  the  blue  pencil, 
a  genuine  fragment  of  E.  The  brief  passage  then  becomes  of  great 
significance.  The  question  naturally  arises  why  E.  was  so  thoroughly 
revised  here.  It  is  surprising  that  the  whole  community  submitted 
like  tame  sheep  to  the  breaking  up  of  their  homes.  Now  the  Chr.  was 
pretty  certain  to  make  the  path  of  the  enforcer  of  law  easy;  but  ap- 
parently historic  facts  were  of  a  different  mind.  At  some  stage  of 
the  story  of  his  efforts  Ezra  cries  out  pathetically:  "only  Jonathan  and 
Johaziah  were  with  me  in  this  matter  and  Meshullam  and  Shabbethai 
the  Lev.  aided  them."  Perhaps  the  actual  divorce  was  not  such  a 
sweeping  success  as  the  Chr.  makes  out;  or  it  may  be  that  with  the  aid 
of  the  four  original  supporters  the  great  zealot  did  succeed  in  bearing 
down  all  opposition. 

16.  And  the  sons  of  the  captivity  did  so]  naturally  would  refer 
to  the  carrying  out  of  the  plan  for  divorce.  But  the  sons  of  the 
captivity  had  proposed  the  plan;  what  we  should  expect  is  a 
statement  that  Ezra  accepted  the  proposal,  e.  g.,  and  Ezra  did 
so.  The  text  is  apparently  disarranged  by  the  Chronicler  and 
the  true  connection  is  obscured. — And  Ezra  the  priest  selected 


EZRA    7-10  347 

for  him  men],  so  we  must  read  after  Esd.  supported  in  part  by  (&. 
The  rendering  of  RV.  disregards  the  text  and  makes  Ezra  the 
head  of  the  divorce  tribunal.  Torrey  renders:  "Ezra  the  priest 
and  certain  chief  men  .  .  .  were  set  apart"  (ES.-^' ' ). — The 
heads  of  the  fathers  for  the  house  of  their  fathers  and  all  of  them 
with  names]  is  not  a  very  satisfactory  description.  "The  heads 
of  the  fathers"  are  the  clan  leaders  called  "our  leaders"  by  the 
people,  V.  1*.  The  Vrss.  show  that  the  text  is  overloaded;  Esd. 
has:  heads  of  their  fathers  all  of  them  according  to  names,  and 
that  is  quite  sufl&cient. — A^id  they  sat  on  the  ist  day  of  the  loth 
month  to  investigate  the  matter].  One  text  of  Esd.  has  and  they 
were  convened,  which  is  a  better  expression.  The  loth  month 
corresponds  to  December-January.  Some  Vrss.  have  "12th 
month";  but  that  would  make  the  session  of  the  court  one 
month  instead  of  three;  and  it  would  convene  two  and  one-third 
months  after  the  assembly,  v.  ^,  instead  of  ten  days.  Esd.  offers 
for  the  last  clause  to  transact  the  business,  and  the  greater  defi- 
niteness  commends  this  reading,  for  investigation  was  not  re- 
quired. The  tribunal  was  charged  with  executive  rather  than 
judicial  functions.  (^  has  a  somewhat  different  reading  of  a 
part  of  this  verse:  Ezra  the  priest  set  apart  the  leaders  of  their 
fathers'  houses;  and  all  being  called  together  by  name  on  the  ist 
day  of  the  12th  month  they  sat  down  to  investigate  the  matter.  This 
reading  is  certainly  less  awkward  than  MT. 

9.  Berth,  thinks  ^ho^]  has  dropped  out  before  xin,  so  Guthe  before 
him,  but  hoD  itnna  would  be  required,  and  then  the  correction  is  more 
prob.  I  suspect  that  the  date  is  a  note  by  the  Chr.  After  (6  Esd.  tou 
jjnrjvii;,  we  should  rd.  S'nnS  for  a'nna. — .  .  .  oiT'yic]  (B  (x%h  Sopu^ou  auruv 
•jcspl  tou  p-rj^iaTo?  v.7.1  ircb  tou  '/bi[xmw^^-'^^ ,  Iv  Tpopiw  aicb  x.  g-QiLa-zoq  v.. 
dxb  T.  xstfJ-wvoi;^;  Esd.  xpi^iovizq  [Sta^-]  xbv  EvsairuTo:  xstf^wva.  The  first 
reading  is  interesting,  explaining  the  assembly  in  the  open  as  due  to 
the  large  number  and  to  the  storm;  but  the  two  ideas  harmonise  no 
better  than  in  MT.  The  important  reading  in  Esd.,  the  only  one  that 
makes  good  sense,  has  escaped  the  attention  of  the  commentators. 
Instead  of  the  meaningless  nain-Sj?,  it  had,  perhaps,  onojjn.  idj?  means 
persist  in  Eccl.  8'  (BDB.),  and  is  represented  by  svtoravat  in  2  K.  13^; 
"persistent  rains"  would  do  well  here.  This,  however,  requires  a  trans- 
position of  words,  and  I  hazard  a  conjecture,  "3  Dni;yn:;,  shivering 
because  of  slattding  in  the  rain. — 11.  niir]  (S  a'cvsaiv  xal  s^otioXdyigatvi-, 


348  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Esd.  s$o[ioX6YY]atv  v.tX  ho^av^,  6\i.o'k.  So^av^A.  Prob.  we  should  add 
TI33,  cf.  7". — D3'ni3N]  with  d  and  Esd.  rd.  irni3K. — ijisi]  (6  tb  apsaxov 
svwiccov  aO-rou,  which  may  be  paraphrastic  as  in  Ne.  q^^.  Esd.  -zh 
Qskrilia  auToO. — 12.  iJ!;^]  Esd.^A  -^aX  l^wviQaav,  a  rendering  found  in  v. ' 
=  ixnp-'i. — .  .  .  Sip]  (5  [tiytx  TouTo  tb  p^i^ci  aou^Aj  ^l  l^as  (pcovfj  tAeyizXTJ 
with  "answered"  and  continues:  [Asya  toOto  to  p^ixa  e?'  Tj[Jia^,  xal  xaTct 
Tou?  Xdyoui;  aou  ou?  s$if]?,  outwi;  xotiQaoiJLev,  a  double  reading  with  varia- 
tions; Esd.  ouTw<;  ojq  e[pT)xa<;  TCotTQaopLsv;  H  juxta  verbum  tuimi  ad  nos  sic 
fiat,  3  Esd.  «'«//  dixisti  Jaciemiis.  Certainly  we  must  rd.  Ti3i.3  {v. 
Moore's  Judges,^-''),  inf.  and  prob.  "cju,  though  OJ  may  be  a  free  ren- 
dering; it  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  do  is  not,  however,  as  strong  as  we  will 
do. — 13.  Sax]  in  late  Heb.  is  strongly  adversative. — nj?n]  CgB  i  toxo? 
xaipogAf^L,  wpofEsd..  The  mng.  is  season,  not  day. — d-'DB'j]  has  an  ad- 
jectival force  corresponding  to  3i,  so  d  and  Esd.,  but  U  tcmpus 
pliivia;,  3  Esd.  tetnpus  hybernum,  is  perpetuated  in  EV^.  The  lexicons 
ignore  this  use.  It  is  impossible  to  render  "a  time  of  rain"  without 
unnecessarily  emending  the  text. — I'lno  .  .  .  }\si]  Esd.  y.otl  oux  bxuHo' 
yisv  oT^vat  (zYOptot  [xal  oux  eupotJLev],  bracketed  parts  in  b  only.  AtOptoc 
elsw.  stands  for  infla,  "threshold,"  or  D'jd,  but  it  would  serve  as  well 
for  v^n^.  We  note  here  a  neat  idiomatic  rendering  instead  of  the  sla- 
vish Uteralism  of  ®.  ^s  plus  is  difficult  to  understand  unless  we  get  nxd 
out  of  hdnSd,  though  the  latter  is  represented  by  epyov,  followed,  it 
may  be  noted,  by  yp.{hy^  -osaivBA. — 14.  inp]  is  here  given  the  mng. 
among  rare  uses,  "be  appointed,"  BDB.  This  would  require  ':'npn-S3;, 
and  the  subj.  would  be  o^is';  yy-\v  shows  that  existing  officials  are 
meant.  Ges.^  proposes  die  Geineinde  vertreten.  The  idea  seems  to 
be :  let  our  officers  stand  for  [or  represent]  the  whole  assembly. — Snp  SaS] 
om.  ($^,  ev  xaaif)!',  Esd.  ol  TupoTjYoutJLEvot  tou  -xXtjOous  =  '"'^p^  'ntf. — ijnj!3] 
Esd.  i%  Twv  y.aTotxtwv  -fjtxwv  =  uo'^'icD,  3  Esd.  qni  wbiscum  inhabitant. 
— CJOTD  DTiyS]  Ne.  10'^  13'',  (&  zlc,  xatpoijc;  axb  auvaywycivB  [auvTaywvA'*] 
i-izh  y.atptovi-;  Esd.  XaPovTc?  ^povov;  3  Esd.  accepto  tempore.  ^  has  rd. 
nnyn,  al  onpion,  and  Esd.  perhaps  anpin  np. — nj?]  is  of  obscure  origin, 
but  in  early  use  is  construed  as  f.  Later,  as  in  this  passage,  it  is  treated 
as  m.  in  accordance  with  the  rule  that  expressions  of  time  are  m.  {ZAW. 
1896,^^). — i^i'i]  om.  (gL.  Esd.  lacks  this  and  also  Dn?3>\ — t^N  jnn]  fipYTjv 
<SA  Esd. — HTH  ^3^S  ly]  B  super  peccato  hoc.  For  "h  t;  rd.  Sj;  as  Sieg. 
— 15.  ix]  d  "luX-^v,  om.  Esd.BAj  T^  igitur,  3  Esd.  autem.  The  mng.  is 
important;  it  never  represents  a  continuation  like  "and  so,"  but  has  a 
restrictive  or  adversative  sense.  The  construction,  vb.  following  subj., 
indicates  a  circumstantial  clause,  another  fact  having  significance  for 
the  exegesis. — ncj,']  (§  [lex'  etiou  =  ''^DJ?,  Esd.  exESe^avTo,  H  steterunt 
susceperunt. — airi*]  d  poTjOuv  a6Toc<;^AX^  dvueXaiJLpdvov  to  otuTwvi-,  Esd. 
cuveppd^euoav  auTot?. — 16.  p]  more  emph.  in  Esd.:  xoto:  xivTa  TauTa. 
— ^h•\2•']  is  grammatically  impossible.  d^A  SteaTdX-rjaav,  thus  making  all 
the  nouns  the  subj.;  (B^'^  oteaTscXsv,  having  the  nouns  in  ace;   Esd. 


EZRA    7-10  349 

IxeXil^aTO  auTcT)  .  .  .  avSpa<;  x.  t.  X.=  iS  ^73^1  ace.  to  Gulhe,  Berth,  d  al. 
But  '?^3  is  used  always  with  a  bad  association,  as  in  "separate  yourself 
from  people  of  land";  exe'A^yetv  never  stands  for  Si2,  but  for  ina  or,  by 
confusion  of  gutturals,  ij73.  Therefore  rd.  tS  nn3\ — nir:::*a  a^^':xj.  (SBAt< 
om. — ani2N].  Esd.  avSpa?  YjYouixsvou^  twv  xaxpidiv  auxwv  %6cvxaq  xat' 
2voii.a,  so  lacking  iniaS  niaxn. — mcuo  oSa]  c/.  S^i,  where  ^2p:  intervenes. 
(6^^  puts  this  after  i32'i  and  renders :  icdvTeq  ol  xXr)0^vTs<;  Iv  ovdyiaatv  = 
"a  Nipjn  Sa.  It  is  tempting  to  see  a  confusion  of  npj  and  N^pj,  and  we 
may  have  the  true  text  in  a  reading  ignored  by  all  scholars  so  far  as 
I  know. — laB'-'i]  is  not  easy.  (S  has  oxt  exsaxpaij^avBAS'^  xal  sxaOiaav  + 
T&yieq  ot  xXtjG^vxe?'-,  Esd.  xal  auv£/.X£ta6TjaavB,  auvexaOtaavAL,  3  Esd. 
considerunt.  Esd.^  must  be  an  error  for  auvsxXi^BTjaav,  cf.  (gi-^  and  then 
we  have  the  best  sense :  they  ivere  convened  for  business,  etc. — •'TJ'j?n] 
StoSex,(4xou  (S'^^'i-,  Esd.i-. — S'lm'^]  must  be  pointed  ti'm';',  but  the  word 
is  inappropriate;  we  should  expect  a  word  like  "begin"  or  as  Esd. 
kxii.Qa.1,  to  transact  (the  business). — 17.  dtjn  Saa  iSdm]  TS  et  consiimmaii 
sunt  omnes  viri,  Esd.  z.al  t^xOt)  ^'^'^  Tcepaq  xa  xaxa  xoO?  avSpa?  =  ~Sjj  SaM 
O'-S'jNn;  Sa  is  explained  by  dittog. — ^>']  is  well  supported,  and  has  here 
the  unusual  sense  at,  or  on;  but  we  should  expect  ara. 

10'^-^''=  Esd.  9'^-^^  The  Ust  of  the  divorced.— The  names 
are  arranged  in  two  classes,  clerical  and  lay;  in  the  clerical  sec- 
tion we  find  four  orders,  priests,  Levites,  singers,  and  porters. 
The  laity  are  grouped  under  clan-names.  The  scheme  is  the 
same  as  in  c.  2  and  other  lists. 

18-22.  The  pr.  are  grouped  by  clans,  of  which  there  were  four, 
the  sons  of  Jes.  Immer,  Harim,  and  Pashhur.  These  are  the  same 
priestly  clans  found  in  2^'-'\  but  the  order  in  the  latter  passage  is 
Jes.,  Immer,  Passhur,  Harim. — 18.  Jes.  the  son  of  Jozadak]  a  full  notice 
so  as  to  identify  this  person  with  the  associate  of  Zer. — And  his 
brethren]  implies  that  the  descendants  of  Jes.'s  brothers  were  classed 
under  the  more  celebrated  name.  The  Chr.,  however,  thrusts  in 
"sons"  and  "brothers"  rather  recklessly  when  writing  about  pr.  or 
Lev. — 19.  And  they  gave  their  hand  to  put  away  their  wives].  "Give 
the  hand"  as  a  symbol  of  swearing  is  old  usage,  2  K.  10". — And  guilty, 
a  ram  of  the  flock  for  their  gtiilt]  requires  some  editing.  RV.  inserts 
"they  offered";  Kue.  emends  to  read:  "and  their  guilt-offering  was  a 
ram  of  the  flock  for  their  guilt."  Torrey  renders:  "they  were  fined  a 
ram  of  the  flock."  A  slight  change  yields:  and  I  appointed  a  ram  of  the 
flock  for  their  guilt,  with  the  startling  result  that  we  have  another  frag- 
ment of  E.,  which  the  Chr.  disguised  but  imperfectly.  It  is  difficult 
to  see  why  this  is  said  of  the  clan  of  Jes.  and  not  of  the  other  pr. 
Ryle  supposes  this  requirement  to  be  imposed  upon  all  the  offenders, 


350  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

but  the  position  of  the  clause  forbids  such  a  wide  application.  Other 
scholars  are  discreetly  silent.  The  natural  explanation  lies  in  the 
greater  prominence  of  the  Jes.  guild.  They  were  of  the  chief  pr.,  and 
so  were  required  to  take  an  oath  and  pay  a  penalty.  It  is  not  unlikely 
that  the  whole  v.  is  out  of  place.  It  might  belong  after  v.  ",  or  better 
after  v.  "^a^  which  connects  poorly  with  v. '«'',  but  very  well  with  v.  •'. 
The  passage  would  then  rd. :  and  there  were  found  some  of  the  pr.  who 
had  married  foreign  luives,  and  they  gave  their  hand  to  put  away  their 
wives;  and  I  appointed  a  ram  of  the  flock  for  their  guilt.  Of  the  sons  of 
Jes.,  etc.  This  is  a  great  improvement  on  MT. — 23.  And  of  the  Lev.] 
of  whom  six  are  named  as  offenders. — 24.  We  find  but  one  singer  and 
three  porters,  but  Esd.  has  two  in  each  class.  In  contrast  with  the  17 
pr.  and  6  Lev.,  we  note  the  absence  of  the  Neth.;  it  appears  that  the 
humbler  officials  were  the  stricter  observers  of  the  law,  but  perhaps  they 
were  foreigners  and  their  marriage  with  foreign  women  was  permitted. 
25-43.  The  laity  are  grouped  under  the  clans  of  Parosh,  Elam, 
Zattu,  Bebai,  Bani,  Pahath-Moab,  Harim,  Hashum,  Bani,  and  Nebo. 
These  are  all  found  in  c.  2,  exc.  one  of  the  Banis,  but  in  quite  a  different 
order.  Four  of  the  names  are  included  in  the  list  of  Ezra's  company: 
Parosh,  Elam,  Bebai,  and  Pahath-Moab. — 30.  Esd.  lacks  Pahath-Moab, 
making  Addin  (  =  Adnah)  the  clan-name.  There  was  such  a  clan  which 
was  represented  in  Ezra's  caravan,  8',  but  not  found  in  c.  2. — 34.  For 
Bani,  which  is  already  found  in  v.  -»,  we  may  possibly  rd.  Binoui. — 38. 
Instead  of  Bani  and  Binnui  on  basis  of  (^  we  should  introduce  another 
clan :  and  of  the  sons  of  Bigvai  or  some  other  name.  The  text  in  this 
part  is  so  corrupt  that  the  original  names  can  no  longer  be  determined. 
44.  All  these  had  taken  foreign  wives,  and  they  had  wives  of  them,  and  they 
— sons].  The  omitted  vb.  of  last  clause  means  to  place,  but  it  cannot 
be  translated  so  as  to  make  sense.  The  text  is  doubtless  corrupt.  <S 
offers :  all  these  had  taken  foreign  wives  and  had  begotten  sons  of  them. 
This  would  mean  either  that  all  who  had  foreign  wives  had  children 
also,  or  that  only  those  who  had  children  were  required  to  put  away 
their  wives.  This  reminds  us  of  the  ground  of  Neh.'s  divorce  proceed- 
ings, Ne.  i3-<.  Esd.  reads  still  differently :  all  these  had  married  foreign 
wives  and  they  put  them  away  with  their  children.  A  pretty  radical 
emendation  is  necessary,  and  I  would  rd. :  all  these  put  away  foreign 
wives,  and  some  of  them  had  children,  and  they  restored  the  children  (to 
their  mothers).  The  children  in  divorce  proceedings  are  always  the 
bone  of  contention.  In  a  sparsely  settled  Jewish  community  the  chil- 
dren would  be  esp.  prized.  The  mng.  is  that  the  reform  was  radical 
and  the  children  were  sent  with  their  mothers  to  their  old  homes  among 
their  own  people.  Being  of  mixed  blood,  they  would  be  deemed  imde- 
sirable  in  a  community  seeking  to  eliminate  all  foreign  influences. 

18.  inscm]  so  we  should  rd.  with  (Janl  Esd.  instead  of  sg.  of  MT. 
— 19.  upm]  Esd.   sTci^aXov. — dt']  (g  xstpa?   otuTtov,   Esd.  Toiq  xs'pa-;. — 


EZRA    7-10  351 

D'D1S»n]  CJi-  xspl  TcXTjixyLeXetoi;,  Esd.  ei?  i^tXaa[>.6y,  H  pro  delicto  sua,  3 
Esd.  ad  litandum  in  exoraiionem.  Kue.  proposes  odi:'n,  "their  guilt- 
offering"  {Abk.'*^).  It  is  natural,  though,  to  expect  a  vb.  here,  and  I 
suggest  D''B'Ni,  "and  I  appointed." — anrc'N]  Esd.  iyvoixq  aijTwv,  3  Esd. 
ignorantia  sua. — 23.  D''iSn]  twv  ulwv  twv  Aeutxwv  CSl  Esd.^-. — .  .  .  n^Sp] 
<S  KtoXeidb  auTb?  KwXteu,  Esd.  outo?. — Nin]  is  to  identify  this  Lev.  with 
na>S|-i  of  Ne.  8'  io»  (7BL.  1898,'").— 24.  J'^B'Sn]  Esd.  EXiaaePo?,  Bax- 
Xoupo?  (Sa>ixoup^). — 'ii^']  lacking  in  Esd.^A^  ^  QSouGb,  QSoueA,  Ouptaq^ 
— 37.  iK'j;^]  (gBAN  xal  exotTjffav.  It  is  lacking  in  Esd.  and  (gi-;  B  Jasi. 
Qr.  reads  ''l^'y^  to  which  we  may  add  n. — 38.  .  .  .  ijai]  ®ban  qJ  u^qI 
Bavoul  xal  u\o\  SeiJiet,  OS'"  Bovval  xal  ulol  Bovvit.  We  might  rd.  as 
Guthe,  ''1J3  ijam.  But  we  have  already  had  two  Bani  clans,  and  Banui 
(the  name  is  really  identical)  is  embarrassing.  It  is  little  more  than 
guessing,  but  we  might  rd.  >M2  in  v. "  as  above  and  substitute  Mja 
or  some  other  clan  in  this  passage. — 44.  Nearly  every  scholar  has 
tried  his  hand  at  this  impossible  text,  but  there  is  no  agreement  about 
results.  Curiously  the  first  part  of  the  v.  is  passed  without  notice. 
But  why  should  we  have  here  the  statement  that  these  men  had  taken 
foreign  wives,  a  fact  already  sufficiently  emphasised?  Moreover,  we 
find  here  nb'j  for  marry,  while  in  the  body  of  this  story  aci  is  always 
used,  vv. '•  '"■  !<•  "•  1'.  We  do  find  kz':  in  g^,  but  it  is  followed  by  ]0. 
The  point  here  is  the  putting  away,  and  that  is  expressed  in  this 
story  by  nxi  (vv.  '• '«),  not  nStr,  as  Guthe  has  it.  Rd.  therefore  iN^xn 
for  ^v^'J :  all  these  put  away  foreign  wives.  To  clear  up  the  rest  of  the 
v.,  substitute  aija  for  di^j  (repeated  from  v.  "),  thus:  and  some  of  them 
[the  men]  had  children.  What  must  have  been  done  with  these  children 
appears  from  v.  ^.  We  may  rd.  ijicm  in  place  of  the  impossible  idicii: 
and  they  restored  the  children  (to  their  mothers). 

The  ethics  of  the  great  divorce. — Sta.  has  pointed  out  the  evil  conse- 
quences of  the  mixed  marriages,  in  that  they  tended  to  threaten  the 
imperfectly  established  solidarity  of  the  community  and  the  develop- 
ment of  the  religious  life  (BT.  3'"'f).  But  actions  cannot  always  be 
judged  from  a  consideration  of  their  consequences.  Moreover,  it  must 
be  noted  that  the  record  is  that  of  mixed  marriages  in  one  direction 
only.  There  is  nothing  here  of  the  marriage  of  Jewish  women  to 
foreign  men,  but  only  of  Jewish  men  to  foreign  women.  Incidentally, 
this  would  suggest  that  the  offenders  belonged  chiefly  to  the  golah. 
A  large  number  of  unmarried  men  might  well  have  come  back  from 
exile,  and  the  provision  of  wives  for  them  may  have  been  as  serious  a 
problem  as  that  of  the  Benj.  centuries  before  (Ju.  19-21).  In  spite  of 
the  classic  story  of  Solomon's  downfall  (i  K.  11  Ne.  13"),  the  position 
of  a  Jewish  wife  was  not  such  as  to  make  her  a  very  influential  factor 
in  the  religious  life  of  the  nation.  The  number  of  offenders  looks  pretty 
big,  but  after  all  there  are  only  103  names  in  the  list,  an  inconsiderable 
number  for  the  whole  Judean  province. 


352  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Ezra's  act  must  not  be  judged  from  the  highest  standards  of  our 
day,  but  from  the  ethical  conceptions  of  his  own  time  and  people. 
Divorce  was  a  very  simple  process  in  Israel,  and  there  was  no  stigma 
attached  to  it.  A  public  hearing  was  not  necessary,  and  no  ofl&cial 
sanction  was  required.  A  man  who  wanted  to  get  rid  of  a  wife  for  any 
cause  whatever  had  only  to  give  her  a  bill  of  divorce  of  his  own  mak- 
ing and  send  her  away.  Neh.  had  made  short  work  of  several  such  al- 
liances a  generation  earlier,  and  no  one  opposed  him  then  or  criticised 
him  since.  The  possible  hardships  to  the  women  are  easily  exaggerated 
from  sentimental  considerations,  but  such  an  idea  would  hardly  enter 
the  mind  of  Ezra  or  his  contemporaries.  The  law  had  long  forbidden 
such  marriages,  and  the  law  was  meant  to  be  obeyed. 

One  may  well  doubt,  though,  whether  any  great  good  resulted  from 
such  a  drastic  course,  and  rejoice  in  the  development  of  more  humane 
methods  of  dealing  with  social  problems,  even  if  these  reforms  came 
slowly. 

NE.  8-IO.  THE  READING  OF  THE  LAW.  THE  LEVITES'  PRAYER. 
THE  SUPPORT  OF  THE  TEMPLE. 

It  is  usual  to  group  c.  8-10  together  as  a  description  of  the  closing 
part  of  Ezra's  administration.  It  is  shown  in  the  intr.  to  c.  10  that 
that  c.  really  belongs  to  Neh.'s  second  administration.  C.  9  also  con- 
tains no  evidence  of  Ezra's  presence.  This  name  in  v.  Mn  (6  is  a  late 
interpolation,  and  contradicts  vv.  i-^.  As  certain  Lev.  are  the  only 
officials  who  have  any  part  in  the  proceedings,  Ezra  is  really  excluded, 
for  he  was  not  likely  ever  to  be  an  idle  spectator.  The  c.  really  describes 
the  wailing  and  praying  on  a  great  fast  day,  such  as  is  described  in  Jo., 
and  the  statement  about  the  reading  of  the  law,  v.  =,  is  the  only  connec- 
tion with  c.  8,  as  if  there  never  had  been  a  public  reading  of  the  law 
in  postex.  Israel  exc.  under  the  guidance  of  Ezra.  Indeed,  v.  =  is  so 
disjointed  that  it  may  well  be  an  addition  by  the  Chr.  to.  make  an  ar- 
tificial connection  between  two  unrelated  passages. 

We  have  left  then  only  c.  8  as  a  part  of  Ezra's  story.  In  regard  to 
vv.  '-'2  there  is  no  room  for  doubt,  but  the  case  is  not  quite  so  clear 
for  vv.  "-18.  In  the  first  place,  the  passage  contains  a  detailed  descrip- 
tion of  the  keeping  of  the  Feast  of  Booths,  which  is  not  particularly 
happy  in  an  account  of  the  promulgation  of  the  law.  Again,  we  note 
that  Esd.  ends  with  v.  ■=,  for  the  one  word  of  v.  ",  which  is  found  in 
Esd.,  being  the  same  word  essentially  as  found  in  <S,  is  decidedly  sus- 
picious. It  is  true  that  in  v.  i'  we  are  told  that  "  the  heads  of  the 
fathers  the  pr.  and  the  Lev.  were  gathered  unto  Ezra  the  scribe."  But 
as  they  assembled  "  to  give  attention  to  the  words  of  the  law,"  and  as 
the  assembly  then  directed  the  keeping  of  the  Feast  of  Booths,  it  is 


NEHEMIAH   8-IO  353 

certainly  prob.  that  "unto  Ezra  the  scribe"  is  another  of  the  Chr.'s 
ingenious  connecting  links.  The  v.  loses  nothing,  but  rather  gains,  by 
the  omission  of  these  words,  and  without  them  there  is  no  hint  of  Ezra's 
presence.  Still  the  reinstitution  of  an  ancient  feast  is  more  in  harmony 
with  Ezra's  chief  purpose  "to  glorify  the  house  of  God,"  Ezr.  7",  than 
the  reading  of  the  law. 

It  is  impossible  to  trace  c.  9  to  its  origin.  It  may  be  from  the  pen 
of  the  Chr.,  but  such  narratives  as  this  might  be  written  by  almost  any- 
body. The  Chr.  may  have  had  scores  of  documents  that  we  know  noth- 
ing about.  Surely  writings  of  various  sorts  were  numerous  enough  in 
this  period  without  ascribing  everything  to  the  Chr.,  unless  we  know 
positively  to  the  contrary.  It  is  very  likely  that  the  Chr.  found  this 
story  of  the  keeping  of  a  fast,  and  incorporated  it  in  his  book,  adding 
some  of  his  characteristic  editorial  annotations.  In  its  original  form 
the  story  certainly  had  nothing  to  do  with  Ezra's  mission. 

8.  The  promulgation  of  the  law,  and  the  Feast  of  Booths. 

The  story  properly  begins  as  in  Esd.  with  7",  for  notes  on  which  v. 
Ezr.  2'".  Connecting  the  text  of  MT.  after  Esd.  we  find  this  prelimi- 
nary notice :  and  the  pr.  and  the  Lev.  and  some  of  the  people  dwelt  in 
Jerus.,  and  all  Israel  in  their  cities.  And  the  "jth  month  approached, 
and  ail  the  people  with  one  accord  assembled  in  the  plaza  at  the  east  gate 
of  the  temple.  This  is  part  of  the  long  deuterograph  (Ezr.  2>-3'  = 
Ne.  7«-8'»);  the  section  is  used  in  Ezr.  as  the  intr.  to  the  building  of 
the  altar,  in  Ne.  as  the  intr.  to  the  issue  of  the  law.  Mey.  dates  this  c. 
in  the  ist  year  of  Neh.,  but  that  is  much  too  early,  v.  Intr.  §  i". 

l''-12  =  Esd.  9^^-^^    The  public  reading  of  the  law.— All 

the  people  being  gathered,  Ezra  reads  the  law  of  Moses. — l**. 
And  they  said  to  Ezra].  It  is  assumed  that  the  people  knew 
that  Ezra  had  the  law  and  had  gathered  for  the  purpose  of 
hearing  it.  As  in  Ezr.  lo^^-,  the  leader  does  not  act  on  his  own 
initiative,  but  in  response  to  the  suggestions  of  others. — Which 
Yahweh  commanded  Israel]  is  preserved  better  in  Esd. :  which  was 
given  by  Yahweh  the  God  of  Israel. — 2.  Before  the  congregation]. 
Esd.  uses  the  less  technical  term  multitude.  The  assembly  was 
composed  of  men,  women,  and  children,  a  condition  emphasised 
in  this  section  because  it  was  unusual  in  Jewish  practice. — A  fid 
all  understanding  to  hear]  is  a  literal  rendering  of  an  obscure 


354  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

phrase.  Esd.  has  all  the  priests  to  hear  the  law.  This  is  clear, 
but  does  not  suit  the  context.  The  words  really  mean  children 
old  enough  to  understand  what  was  read. 

This  is  clear  from  a  comparative  study.  In  v. »  there  are  three  con- 
stituents in  the  assembly,  men,  women,  and  all  able  to  hear  under- 
standingly.  In  lo"  besides  the  men  in  the  assembly  there  are  "their 
wives,  their  sons  and  their  daughters,  all  knowing  how  to  understand." 
The  last  clause  qualifies  "sons  and  daughters."  The  mng.  is  then  that 
all  the  children  old  enough  to  comprehend  the  business  were  a  part 
of  the  gathering,  and  that  is  the  sense  here,  the  children  being  a  third 
element  in  the  congregation. 

On  the  ist  day  of  the  yth  month]  in  the  early  autumn.  This 
date  is  probably  original  in  the  body  of  the  story,  and  may  be 
the  ground  of  the  connection  with  c.  7.  That  passage  leads  up 
to  an  assembly  in  the  7th  month,  and  here  we  have  an  assembly 
of  the  7th  month,  and  on  that  slender  basis  some  rather  obtuse 
editor  has  made  the  two  assemblies  identical. — 3.  And  he  read 
in  it  .  .  .  from  daylight  until  the  middle  of  the  day].  (I  is  more 
specific :  from  the  hour  the  sun  gives  light.  B  was  not  satisfied 
with  a  half-day's  reading  of  the  law,  and  so  has  until  evening  in- 
stead of  until  noon.  In  Esd.^  we  have  and  I  read,  suggesting 
a  trace  of  E. — Before  the  men  and  the  women  and  the  children]. 
The  same  components  of  the  assembly  are  named  in  v.  2,  but  the 
last  word  is  lacking  in  Esd. — And  the  ears  of  all  the  people  were 
towards  the  book  of  the  law].  Esd.  has  a  reading  here  which  is 
clearer  than  MT. :  and  they  gave  their  whole  attention  to  the  law. 
The  people  not  only  remained  during  this  long  reading,  but 
were  attentive  to  what  they  heard.  The  fact  is  noteworthy 
because  of  the  length  of  the  session. — 4.  The  narrative  comes 
back  now  to  describe  with  minuteness  the  conditions  under 
which  Ezra  was  reading.  Evidently  the  author  considered 
this  an  important  occasion. — And  Ezra  the  scribe  stood  upon  a 
wooden  platform].  The  word  properly  means  tower;  it  is  very 
common,  and  nowhere  else  has  any  other  sense.  But  a  tower 
here  indicates  a  high  platform,  large  enough  for  Ezra  and  his 
companions  to  stand  upon,  so  that  the  reader  could  be  heard 
by  the  large  audience. — Which  they  had  made  for  the  purpose], 


NEIIEMIAH    8-IO  355 

indicating  that  the  platform  was  newly  erected  in  view  of  this 
anticipated  reading  of  the  law.  "Purpose"  is  not  too  broad  a 
meaning  for  the  comprehensive  l^ll,  though  the  strict  meaning 
is  word.  It  is  tempting  with  some  ancient  texts  to  read  for 
speaking.  In  that  case  Ezra  uses  a  platform  which  had  already- 
been  long  in  use  by  those  like  Nehemiah  (cf.,  e.  g.,  Ne.  5)  who 
addressed  the  assembled  people.  Esd.,  however,  has  merely: 
upon  the  wooden  platform  which  had  been  made. — Atid  there  stood 
by  his  side],  and  then  follows  a  list  of  six  men  on  his  right  and 
seven  on  his  left. 

The  list  of  names  is  regarded  by  Mey.  as  quite  worthless  {Ent. 
I79<).  Torrey  regards  these  men  as  laymen  (ES.^'s).  There  must 
originally  have  been  but  twelve,  six  on  each  side.  Meshullam  is  lacking 
in  05  and  Esd.,  and,  as  Torrey  suggests,  may  be  a  variant  of  Skdivd,  on 
the  left.  Sm.  thinks  with  much  plausibility  that  the  readers  of  the  law 
were  Lev.  {Listen,'^). 

8^"'.  Another  story  of  the  reading  of  the  law. — As  the  text 
stands,  we  make  little,  if  any,  advance  over  w.  ^•*.  The  only 
thing  new  is  the  effect  upon  the  people. — 5.  And  Ezra  opened 
the  book  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people].  As  he  had  already  been 
reading  the  law  for  a  half-day,  v. ',  this  must  be  a  duplicate. 
(5  has  before  the  people,  but  our  text  is  better,  for  it  means  that 
Ezra  stood  so  that  all  the  people  saw  him. — For  he  was  above  all 
the  people],  certainly  unnecessary  after  v.  *,  and  another  evi- 
dence of  a  duplicate  account.  Esd.  gives  a  less  physical  sense, 
reading: /or  he  sat  in  glory  in  the  sight  of  all. — And  as  he  opened 
it  all  the  people  stood  up].  The  standing  was  a  mark  of  recogni- 
tion of  the  divine  source  of  the  law;  so  King  Eglon  rose  from 
his  seat  when  Ehud  told  him  he  had  a  message  from  God 
(Ju.  320). — 6.  And  Ezra  blessed  Yahweh  the  great  God].  Before 
beginning  to  read,  Ezra,  holding  the  open  roll  in  his  hands, 
blessed  or  praised  God,  probably  for  giving  the  people  the  law, 
V.  ^. — With  a  raising  of  their  hands]  in  token  of  adoration,  the 
attitude  of  prayer.  So  Moses  held  up  his  hands  in  prayer 
while  Joshua  fought  with  Amalek  (Ex.  17").  BDB.  interprets 
this  passage  as  equivalent  to  taking  an  oath,  but  it  is  not  easy 


356  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

to  see  what  place  an  oath  has  here. — And  they  bowed  down  and 
prostrated  themselves  to  Yahweh  with  the  face  to  the  ground],  an 
Oriental  posture  of  homage,  universal  to-day  among  the  Mo- 
hammedans, and  supporting  the  interpretation  given  to  the  pre- 
ceding clause. 

7.  In  this  list  of  13  names,  not  one  is  found  among  those  of  the  men 
who  stood  on  the  platform  with  Ezra.  With  Esd.  we  must  om.  "and" 
before  "the  Lev.,"  which  stands  in  app.  with  the  names.  Then,  un- 
fortunately, we  reach  obscurity  abundantly  witnessed  in  the  Vrss. 
The  furthest  removal  from  our  text,  and  yet  the  best  sense  is  found  in 
B :  caused  silence  among  the  people  for  the  hearing  of  the  law,  a  function 
of  the  Lev.  ace.  to  v.".  The  people  had  been  crying  "amen,"  and 
were  prostrating  themselves,  perhaps  with  loud  cries.  While  this 
commotion  lasted,  the  reading  of  the  law  was  out  of  the  question. 
The  usual  rendering,  caused  the  people  to  understand  the  law,  is  impos- 
sible, for  that  puts  the  cart  before  the  horse  with  a  vengeance,  as  it 
makes  the  interpretation  of  the  law  precede  its  reading,  which  in  this 
section  first  comes  in  v.  ^.  The  last  clause  is  lit.  and  the  people  upon 
their  standing],  which  is  rendered  in  EV^  after  B  "  the  people  stood  in 
their  place."  The  words  are  best  connected  with  v. «,  and  out  of  the 
corruption  we  may  extract  and  when  the  people  rose  again,  from  the 
prostration  described  in  v. ',  for  the  reading  would  not  begin  until  the 
people  stood  up. 

8 .  They  read  in  the  hook  of  the  law  of  God],  The  plural  verb 
is  evidently  a  mistake,  for  Ezra  alone  was  the  lector. — ^The  rest 
is  so  obscure  that  we  cannot  be  sure  what  word  stood  here. 
The  ordinary  rendering  is :  distinctly,  and  they  gave  the  sense,  and 
the  people  understood  the  reading],  but  this  is  a  doubtful  trans- 
lation of  a  loosely  constructed  passage.  The  first  clause  is 
lacking  in  Esd.  <S  renders :  and  he  taught  and  instructed  them  in 
the  knowledge  of  Yahweh,  and  the  people  understood  at  the  reading. 
3  Esd.  has:  and  individually  they  singled  out  those  who  under- 
stood the  reading. 

On  the  basis  of  Ezr.  4"  the  word  for  "distinctly"  may  be  rendered 
in  translation.  The  last  clause  is  clear,  and  titey  understood  what  was 
read.  B'isd  must  define  the  means  by  which  the  people  understood. 
The  obscure  clause  may  mean :  and  the  translator  set  forth  the  meaning. 
The  ofiice  of  translating  is  given  to  the  Lev.  who  were  teachers,  and 
who  certainly  stood  by  Ezra  while  he  rd.    The  law  was  in  Heb.,  and 


NEHEMIAH  8-IO  357 

this  interpretation  assumes  that  most  of  the  people  no  longer  under- 
stood that  tongue.  Ne.  i3=<  shows  the  beginning  of  the  decadence  of 
Heb.  as  a  living  tongue.  This  event  was  surely  later  and  may  have 
been  very  much  later. 

The  alternative  is  to  suppose  the  word  really  to  mean  wilh  a  loud 
voice.  The  point  then  would  be  that  Ezra  reads  a  sentence,  which  is 
repeated  by  the  Lev.,  famous  for  their  high,  far-carrying  tones,  so  that 
it  could  be  heard  by  all  the  assembly. 


g9-i2^  The  keeping  of  a  feast. — The  effect  of  hearing  the 
law  was  to  produce  mourning  and  weeping  among  the  peo- 
ple. They  are  cheered  with  the  assurance  that  the  day  is  holy 
and  are  bade  to  keep  a  joyful  feast. — 9 .  The  speakers  named  in 
our  text  are  Neheniiah,  that  is  the  governor,  and  Ezra,  the  priest, 
the  scribe,  and  the  Levites  who  taught  the  people].  Nehemiah  the 
governor  has  been  interpolated  into  the  text  by  the  Chronicler 
to  justify  his  wrong  chronology,  making  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
contemporaries  (so  Mey.^^^).  Torrey  considers  only  "Nehe- 
miah" as  the  interpolation  (ES.^^^).  Esd.  has  an  interesting 
text :  the  governor  said  to  Ezra  and  to  the  Levites.  It  would  have 
been  unseemly  to  the  Chronicler  that  a  civil  governor  should 
inform  the  priest  about  holy  days. — To-day  is  holy  to  Yahweh 
our  God].  Our  of  (B  is  preferable  to  your  of  il|.  The  ist  day 
of  the  7th  month  (Tisri,  v.  2)  was  set  apart  for  the  Feast  of 
Trumpets,  Lv.  27,^-'^"->  Nu.  29^-®.  But  the  observance  of  the  day 
as  described  here  does  not  conform  to  the  law.  Ryle  thinks 
the  day  became  holy  because  the  law  was  read,  since  the  peo- 
ple would  not  yet  know  anything  about  this  festival.  The 
people  did  not  know  that  it  was  a  holy  day  until  they  were  told, 
and  certainly  Ezra  could  not  have  been  ignorant  about  the  re- 
quirements for  the  Feast  of  Trumpets. — Do  not  mourn  and  do 
not  weep,  for  all  the  people  were  weeping  as  they  heard  the  words 
of  the  law].  The  law  produced  an  undesired  effect,  for  the  peo- 
ple broke  out  into  weeping.  Why  did  they  shed  tears?  We 
have  at  least  a  striking  parallel,  for  King  Josiah  rent  his  clothes 
when  the  new  law  of  Dt.  was  read  to  him  (2  K.  22")-  We 
know  further  that  the  cause  of  his  distress  was  the  expected 
execution  of  the  threats  in  a  law  which  had  never  been  obeyed 


358  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

(ib.  V.  1').  The  same  reasons  might  explain  the  mourning  of 
the  people  now,  cf.  Ezr.  lo*. — 10.  Directions  are  given  by  Ezra 
for  the  people's  observance  of  the  holy  day :  come,  eat  the  fat 
pieces  and  drink  sweet  drinks].  The  fat  pieces,  from  the  Oriental 
point  of  view,  are  the  most  dainty  morsels  of  the  meat.  The 
sweet  drink  is  presumably  the  new  sweet  wine. — And  send  por- 
tions to  those  for  whom  nothing  is  prepared],  or  better  with  (^ 
who  have  nothing,  i.  e.,  the  poor.  There  is  no  law  enjoining 
this  distribution  except  the  general  law  of  charity. 

The  words  taken  altogether  imply  that  a  feast  was  held  and  sacri- 
fices made,  from  which  the  people  were  to  eat  as  in  the  early  times. 
The  words  sound  Uke  an  invitation  to  a  meal.  The  reading  had  pro- 
ceeded from  dawn  till  noon.  The  people  were  hungry.  Animals  may 
already  have  been  slain  and  now  the  invitation  is  given  to  feast.  The 
last  sentence  is  obscure  on  account  of  corruption;  the  text  may  be 
rendered :  and  do  not  grieve,  for  the  joy  of  Yahweh  is  your  stronghold^. 
This  word  for  "joy"  is  found  elsw.  only  i  Ch.  i6-';  "stronghold"  as 
a  place  of  shelter  is  often  found  as  a  pred.  of  God,  e.  g.,  Ps.  27*  31  = 
Is.  25  <.  But  how  could  the  joy  of  Yahweh  be  a  shelter?  We  might 
possibly  suppose  a  very  refined  sense:  you  will  find  your  refuge  from 
the  dire  threats  of  the  law  by  filling  yourselves  now  with  a  divine  joy. 
The  Vrss.  show  that  the  text  was  hard  to  rd.  or  to  understand,  Esd., 
e.  g.,  reading  for  Yahweh  will  give  you  glory.  OS  has  merely:  for  he  is 
our  strength.  The  trouble  is  not  so  much  the  words  themselves  as  their 
unsuitableness  to  the  context.  The  sentence  is  designed  to  give  rea- 
son why  the  people  should  cease  to  mourn. 

11 .  This  verse  is  in  a  way  parenthetical,  describing  more  par- 
ticularly the  method  by  which  the  people  were  quieted. — And 
the  Levites  were  quieting  all  the  people  saying.  Be  still,  for  to-day 
is  holy,  and  do  not  grieve.  This  repeats  what  has  been  already 
said  in  preceding  places. — 12.  The  people  did  as  enjoined  in 
v.  ^°,  the  writer  adding  and  to  make  a  great  rejoicing].  The  rea- 
son for  the  joyful  feasting  is  then  given  in  words  hard  to  com- 
prehend: for  they  understood  the  words  which  had  been  taught 
them].  Here  again  the  statement  is  clear  in  itself,  but  it  serves 
poorly  as  a  ground  for  the  feasting. 

We  would  naturally  refer  the  statement  to  their  comprehension  of 
the  law,  but  that  had  produced  mourning  and  lamentation  and  woe. 


NEHEMIAH    8-IO  359 

The  only  other  possible  reference  is  to  the  words  of  vv. "  '•,  about  the 
holy  day  and  the  feast.  But  it  would  seem  superfluous  to  explain 
that  the  people  understood  such  simple  directions  as  to  eat  and  drink. 
It  may  be  that  the  meaning  is:  they  perceived  the  didy  to  feast  in  the  words 
of  the  law  which  had  been  taught  them.  As  we  cannot  find  a  hint  of  such 
a  duty  in  the  passage,  the  understanding  of  the  people  was  noteworthy. 
3  Esd.  shows  an  alternative,  though  not  a  very  hopeful  one:  they  were 
greatly  exalted  hy  the  words  which  they  had  been  taught. 

1 .  D>'n  h^]  Esd.  icdtv  xi)  xX^Oo?  =  Snp  as  v.  -. — nnx]  (Sii-  adds  zlc,  'le- 
pouaaXT)t«.,  thus  completing  the  sentence  as  Ezr.  3'. — D'cn  .  .  .  ntJ'x] 
Esd.  ToO  xpb?  dvaToXa?  Ispou  icuXwyoi;. — neon]  Esd.  xw  lepel  xal  avay- 
V(i(jx7)  =  Nip)  pDH. — . . .  P!<  niD'']  om.  (&^;  Esd.Ai  uxb  xupt'ou  OeoG  'la- 
pai^X,  B  om.  xupt'ou. — 2.  I^jn]  <gL  adds  6  Ypa[jipLaxeij<;,  Esd.^A  {,  dtp^cepsu?, 
which  A  has  in  v. '  also. — I'ao-Sji]  ^l  .^f^X  xavxb<;  dxouovxoi;  cuvtivat,  Esd. 
xal  xaffiv  xoiq  lepeufft^A^  showing  jhd  for  |^3C,  eloquent  witness  of  the  il- 
legibility of  MSS.  ^  adds  xal  xavxl  (ixotjovxt  xoii  auvcevat,  showing  the 
common  correcting  dup. — yes's]  Esd.BA^  ixoOrat  xbv  v6[aov. — 3.  N-ip'i] 
Esd.^  dv^Yvw. — a''nn  ■•joS]  lacking  in  (5ban^  'Esd.  Iv  xw  xpb  xoj  IspoCi 
xuXwvo?  eipuxwpou^^,  sv  x^  supoxwpc.o  xou  xpwxou  IspoO  xwXwvoi;^. — "JD 
iiNn]  Esd.  dcxb  opGpou,  (S  dxb  xf)s  wpaq  Stajpwxfaat  xbv  TjXtov  =  TNn  njJD 
tfDit'n  — minn  .  .  .  ouosi]  Esd.  xal  sxsSwxav  xdvxa  [xav  xb  xX^6oi;AL]  ^^y 
voOv  eJs  Tbv  v6;jLov.  This  text  lacks  ijt.xi  and  iDD  and  construes  d^J'JD 
as  pred.  of  oyn  or  Snpn. — 4.  loon]  Esd.  6  lepeuq  xal  dvayvwaxi^?  xou 
v6tJiou. — "i3iS  .  .  .  isyx]  om.  ®ban^  l  ^^s  6  Ixofijaev  stg  xb  Sr)[j.T)Yop^aat  = 
l3iS  iTtTj;  iii'x;  Esd.  xou  xaxaaxsuaaOevxoc;. — 1J'D'»-Sy]  (&  Esd.  ex.  Of 
the  last  four  names  ®s  has  only  Zechariah. — 5.  nne'i]  Esd.  xal  iva- 
Xa^wv,  aviXa^evL  =  NB'ji  or  np'^i. — nson]  Esd.A  xb  ^t'^Xtov  xou  v6[ji.ou.— 
^j-'j/'S]  01  and  Esd.  Ivwxtov  =  udS. — ayn  Sj]  Esd.  xou  xX^Oouc;. — n^n  ...  13] 
Esd.  xpoexdSTjxo  ydp  exiSo^wq  svwxcov  xdvxwv.  3  Esd.  prcBsidebat  etiini 
in  gloria  in  conspectu  omnium,  showing  •'J''>"S  here. — 6.  nitj?]  lacking 
in  C6^,  Esd.B  has  Al^apta?,  one  of  those  on  Ezra's  right  hand  in  v.  *. 
— .  .  .  niD'']  Esd.  xupt'q)  6ew  xw  U(p(crx(p  Oetp  aa^awO  navxoxpdxopt'AL. — 
W"]  Esd.  eyuvTjcevBAj  i^s(f(!ivt]as'^. — jdn>]  ^  xal  sixav  =  noNii. — px'] 
om.  Esd.AL.  Esd.  lacks  0''dn  and  puts  nsiN  directly  after  np>i,  thus 
xpoaxeaovxe?  Ixl  x-f]v  ytjv  xpoaexuvrjaav  xy  Oew. — 7.  'J3i]  C|l  and  Esd.i- 
xal  ol  ulol  auxou  xal  Bavaiaq. — dmShi  .  .  .  VO']  lacking  in  (Si'AX^  perhaps 
accidentally  skipping  a  line. — aiiSni].  The  conj.  is  lacking  in  Esd. — 
minS  . . .  VJ12D]  II  silentium  faciebant  in  populo  ad  audiendam  legem, 
showing  O'lirnn  for  oijjc.  Esd.  has  eSfSaaxovS,  but  "teaching"  an- 
ticipates V. «,  and  teaching  could  not  precede  reading.  For  the  whole 
clause  3  Esd.  has:  et  prceferebant  singuli  eos  qui  intelligebant  leclionem, 
and  they  each  one  chose  those  who  understood  the  reading. — ainy-Sy  oyni] 
Esd.  xal  xpb?  xb  xXrjOos  (connecting  with  Nip'i  v. «)  =  ayn-Sy.  MT. 
may  be  due  to  careless  dittog. — 8.  iNip^i]  (&^  xal  sv^yvw  "El^Spaq. — 


360  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

Sou* .  .  .  ItnsjD]  C5  xal  eStSaaxev  ["Eapa?"™-  ^j  xal  StiffTeXXsv  Iv  extcxi^pit) 
Kupfou;  the  words  are  lacking  in  Esd.,  rd.  hy-v  oiiy  anani,  aH(f  ;Ae  trans- 
lator gave  the  mng. — Nipaa  ijia^]  (8  xoeI  auvijxsv  6  Xabq  sv  xfj  devotyvtoffst; 
Esd.  etiyuotouvxei;  apiat  ir-fjv  dtvaYvtoatv;  H  ei  intellexerunt,  ctivi  legeretur. — 
9.  "nn  Nin  .T'onj]  ^ban  NeetiJai;.  Esd.  has  xal  e?xsv  'ATxapa-riQ  "Eapqc 
Twx.  T.  >..  One  Gk.  version  lacks  "Neh.,"  the  other  the  title.  Esd. 
did  not  understand  this  title  and  transliterates  it.  It  appears  that 
this  title  was  put  into  the  text  first,  and  that  "Neh."  was  added  in  a 
new  recension  in  which  Ne.  1-7  was  placed  in  the  midst  of  the  Ezra 
narrative.  The  title  may  in  the  original  have  been  apphed  to  Ezra, 
though  it  is  given  to  him  nowhere  else. — od-tiSn]  lacking  in  Esd.  (Sban  ^^ 
eew  Tjiiwv  correctly. — i^an  .  .  .  Sk]  lacking  in  Esd. — nai]  lacking  in  Esd. 
— 10.  anS  idkm]  lacking  in  Esd.BA,  3  Esd.  et  dixit  Esdras. — a^pnno  intfi] 
lacking  in  Esd.s. — nijc]  Esd.  ixoaioMq  =  o^mSr.— iS  ]idj  r^'']  C5  and 
Esd.  Tol?  [li)  exouotv. — DDrpn . . .  '<3]  (S  o-ct  eaxlv  bx^i?  '^[JlwvB^  (ufAwvA); 
Esd.  6  yap  xiipto?  So^tiaet  b[xa<;. — 11.  D^trns]  v.  on  v. ';  Esd.  IxiXeuov, 
only  used  in  Apocr.,  but  mng.  "make  an  announcement";  so  3  Esd. 
denuntiebant. — ion]  lacking  in  Esd.BA;  transposed  and  placed  after  B'np 
in  I-,  i.  c,  fftyocTe  xal  (1t)  XuxsIaOs. — lJ"'3n  >3]  Esd.  Sxt  xal  £ve9uatweT3aav; 
3  Esd.  magnifice  enim  sunt  exaltati,  where  we  may  note  nSnj  lacking 
in  its  proper  place,  and  on  has  been  rd.  for  pa. 

gi3-i8^  The  Feast  of  Booths. — Continuing  the  reading  of 
the  law,  the  command  to  keep  the  Feast  of  Booths,  or  Taber- 
nacles, as  it  is  wrongly  called,  is  found  and  the  people  go  to  the 
mountain  for  branches  to  build  booths.  The  reading  of  the  law 
is  continued  daily  for  the  seven  days. — 13 .  On  the  2d  day  of  the 
7th  month,  and  so  directly  after  the  events  described  in  vv.  ^-i^, 
all  of  which  are  assumed  to  have  taken  place  in  one  day,  cf.  v.  \ 
The  assembly  is  now  described  as  composed  of  the  heads  of  the 
fathers  of  all  the  people,  a  favourite  term  of  the  Chronicler,  the 
priests  and  the  Levites].  The  mass  of  the  people,  who  had  par- 
ticipated in  the  first  day's  proceedings,  are  not  mentioned,  and 
were  probably  not  present.  Unto  Ezra  the  scribe]  is  probably  a 
gloss,  V.  s. — The  object  of  this  assembly  was  not  the  reading 
of  the  law,  but  its  study,  to  get  an  insight  into  [or  give  heed  to] 
the  words  of  the  law].  The  clan  leaders  and  the  ecclesiastics 
were  gathered  now  to  put  the  law  into  effect. — 14.  Afid  they 
found  written  in  the  law  which  Yahweh  commanded  by  the  hand  of 
Moses  that  the  sons  of  Israel  shoidd  dwell  in  booths  on  the  feast 
of  the  'jth  month.     RV.  "how  that  Yahweh  had  commanded" 


NEHEMIAH    8-IO  36 1 

is  wrong.      The  first  It^t^  is  a  relative  and  the  second  a  con- 
junction. 

The  law  referred  to  is  found  in  Dt.  16"-'=  Lv.  23^3  (i._  'Yhe  time 
prescribed  in  Dt.  is  after  the  gathering  of  the  harvest,  and  the  festival 
corresponds  with  the  ingathering  of  the  earlier  code  (Ex.  23'5i>  34=2  b)^ 
The  Levitical  code  gives  the  15th  of  the  7th  month  as  the  appointed 
time,  but  connects  the  feast  with  the  gathering  of  the  harvest.  Ace. 
to  our  dates  the  feast  was  kept  on  the  2d  day  of  the  month.  This 
story  is  based  on  the  Lev.  code,  where  alone  a  specific  date  is  prescribed, 
and  where  the  making  of  booths  is  ordered.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
Ezra  should  have  held  the  feast  on  the  wrong  day.  We  may  suppose 
that  either  the  ist  day  of  v.  =  is  an  error,  "2d"  in  v.  ^"  mng.  the  next 
day,  or,  more  prob.,  13  days  had  elapsed  between  the  assembly  of  stu- 
dents in  V.  "  and  the  actual  keeping  of  the  festival.  In  9'  we  are 
transported  to  the  24th  day,  just  right  if  the  seven-day  feast  began 
on  the  15th.  We  must  remember,  though,  that  the  two  sections  are 
loosely  joined  and  may  have  no  original  connection  at  all. 

15.  And  they  commanded  and  issued  a  proclamation].  So  we 
must  read  by  a  slight  correction,  for  here  we  have  the  orders 
given  to  the  people,  and  not  a  continuation  of  the  law.  On 
"issuing  a  proclamation"  v.  on  Ezr.  i^ — In  all  their  cities  and 
in  Jerusalem.  As  the  message  convening  all  the  people  to  the 
feast  was  sent  all  over  Judah,  a  period  of  seven  days  would  be 
required  before  the  orders  could  be  complied  with,  and  so  we 
can  account  for  the  13  days  between  v. "  and  v.  *^. — Go  to  the 
mountain],  referring  probably  to  the  hill  country  of  Judah  gen- 
erally and  not  to  any  one  mountain. — And  bring  in  leaves], 
here  meaning  the  leaves  attached  to  the  twigs  and  so  used  for 
branches.  There  follows  the  catalogue  of  trees,  the  most  exten- 
sive in  the  Bible,  except  Is.  41":  olive,  oil-tree  {oleaster),  myrtle,* 
palm,  afui  thick  trees  (with  heavy  foliage,  perhaps  evergreens). 
In  Lv.  23 ^^  we  find  ''palm,  thick  trees  and  willows,"  only  two 
trees  common  in  the  two  passages.  Perhaps  the  Chronicler  has 
amplified  the  passage  according  to  the  usage  in  his  own  day,  or 
the  leaders  may  have  named  all  the  trees  which  might  easily 
be  found,  thinking  rightly  that  it  was  not  material  what  kind 
of  trees  the  branches  were  from. — 16.  The  people  obeyed  the 

*Once  common  in  Palestine,  and  still  found,  though  rarely  (GAS.  Twelve  Propliets.  W,'*'). 


362  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

proclamation  and  built  the  booths  each  one  upon  his  roof*  and 
in  their  courts],  for  those  who  had  residences  in  Jerusalem,  aitd 
in  the  courts  of  the  house  of  God],  for  the  priests,  Levites,  and 
other  temple  officials,  and  in  the  open  place  of  the  water  gate], 
where  the  first  assembly  had  been  held,  v.  ^  and  therefore  pre- 
sumably the  largest  open  space  in  the  city,  and  in  the  open  place 
of  the  gate  of  Ephraim],  for  those  who  lived  outside  of  Jerusalem. 
The  gate  of  Ephraim  is  named  in  2  K.  14''  =  2  Ch.  25^  Ne. 
12'^.  See  Guthe,  ZDPV.  viii,^^  ^^  It  was  presumably  the 
main  outlet  to  the  north  country. 

n.  And  all  the  congregation  who  had  returned  from  the  cap- 
tivity] shows  a  note  of  the  Chronicler,  who  assumed  that  all  the 
people  who  were  in  Judah  in  Ezra's  time  were  returned  exiles. 
— For  the  sons  of  Israel  had  not  done  so  from  the  days  of  Joshua 
the  son  of  Nun  until  that  day].  The  reference  is  not  to  some 
keeping  of  this  feast  by  Joshua,  for  we  know  of  no  other  cele- 
bration, but  the  meaning  is  that  in  all  Hebrew  history  the  fes- 
tival had  not  been  kept.  Ryle  argues  that  the  meaning  is  not 
that  no  feast  was  kept,  but  that  it  had  not  been  kept  in  the 
strict  way  required  by  Ezra,  and  this  big  conclusion  is  based 
on  the  words  "done  so."  "So"  or  "thus"  is  indeed  an  in- 
definite word,  but  here  it  can  only  refer  to  the  particular  fes- 
tival described.  The  feast  had  been  kept  by  Solomon,  2  Ch. 
7*  8",  by  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua,  Ezr.  3'',  cf.  Zc.  141^-^^.  Hos. 
12^  shows  that  the  feast  was  generally  kept  in  his  time.  But 
the  author  ignores  this  evidence.  The  law  was  new,  and  every 
institution  appears  to  be  new. — And  there  was  a  very  great 
rejoicing.  This  was  but  complying  with  the  law  for  the  feast 
according  to  Dt.  16^*  Lv.  23^. — 18.  With  a  Greek  text  we 
must  read :  and  Ezra  read  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  God  daily  from 
the  ist  day  [of  the  Feast  of  Booths,  as  we  find  in  a  Greek  ms.] 
until  the  last  day],  i.  e.,  the  7th  day  of  the  feast. — And  on  the 
8th  day  there  was  an  assembly  according  to  the  ordinance].  This 
word  for  "assembly"  is  found  in  Lv.  23'^  to  define  holy  convoca- 
tion. The  law  forbade  any  work  on  that  day;  perhaps  thus  we 
may  explain  the  abrupt  stop  of  the  narrative  at  this  point. 

•  Simple  tents  were  often  set  up  on  the  roofs  for  transient  guests  (Kittel,  Kdnige,^"). 


NEHEMIAH    8-IO  363 

The  narrative  assumes  that  the  people  were  absolutely  ignorant  of 
the  law  prescribing  the  Feast  of  Booths.  As  it  had  been  celebrated 
already  in  the  postex.  period,  this  section  cannot  have  originated  with 
the  Chr.  He  would  not  have  been  guilty  of  such  a  stupid  blunder  as 
to  contradict  Ezr.  3<.  Some  other  writer  might  easily  have  displayed 
such  ignorance,  for  many  Jews  may  have  been  uneducated  in  the  his- 
tory of  Israel. 

13-18.  At  this  point  the  book  of  Esd.  ends,  though  we  find  in  ba 
xal  lxtffuvT)x9T)aav  corresponding  to  isdn:  in  v.  ".  In  ^  we  have  the 
whole  of  V.  ",  but  it  agrees  so  exactly  with  05^  that  the  broken  sentence 
of  Esd.  must  have  been  completed  from  (B,  perhaps  by  Lucian  himself. 
Material  for  textual  criticism,  therefore,  is  sadly  deficient  for  the  rest  of 
the  book. — 14.  T'3]  lacking  in  (§. — 15.  Sip  n'JjJ^i]  ($  adcXxcy^tv  =  msisn, 
"clarion,"  a  word  found  often  in  P  (v.  BDB.  and  Benz.  ylrc/?."'). — 
idnS]  CS»  xal  sixev  "Eapac;.  This  is  prob.  an  original  reading,  as  may 
be  determined  by  the  disinclination  of  the  Gk.  translators  to  depart 
from  the  text  in  the  interest  of  intelligibility,  but  the  Heb.  has  the 
better  text  nevertheless. — 16.  aimai  con  nj;'^]  OS^an'  ^fiq  xdXew?  xal 
Id)?  =  njJi  l-ipn.  ^  has  this  and  then  adds  full  text  of  MT.,  showing 
the  frequent  correction  by  addition. — 17.  nND]  lacking  in  (Sban — ig. 
NnpM]  +  "El^Spa?!-. — pCNin]  -j-  tuv  axrjvuvi-. — OSiyno]  lacking  in  <&^. 

9.  The  great  confession. — A  great  fast  is  kept  and  on  the 
day  of  its  observance  a  long  confession  is  said.  The  two  things 
are  but  loosely  connected,  and  the  confession  reveals  clearly 
conditions  later  than  the  Persian  period. 

1-5.  The  fast. — 1.  Aitd  on  the  24th  day  of  this  month].  The 
day  but  one  after  the  completion  of  the  Feast  of  Booths  by  all 
the  people  of  Judah,  8^*.  For  so  the  Chronicler  connects  the 
events. — Our  text  has:  and  earth  was  upon  them].  This  is  not 
found  in  the  best  Greek  texts,  and  where  it  does  occur  it  is 
correctly  specified  upon  their  head.  This  was  a  common  sign 
of  deep  distress  {v.,  e.  g.,  i  S,  4^^  2  S.  i^  15^^  Jb.  2^^). — 2. 
And  the  seed  of  Israel  separated  themselves  from  all  the  sons  of 
foreigners.  This  shows  the  priestly  spirit.  The  pure-blooded 
son  of  Abraham  was  alone  a  fit  subject  for  Yahweh's  favour. 
The  presence  of  an  alien  was  a  disturbing  influence.  Just  how 
the  separation  was  made  it  is  hard  to  say.  Perhaps  foreigners 
were  not  hard  to  exclude  from  a  service  characterised  by  fast- 
ing, sackcloth,  and  earth.    Sta.  says  we  do  not  know  who  these 


364  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

foreigners  were  nor  their  relation  to  the  Jewish  community 
(BT.^^^).  They  must  include  all  that  could  not  prove  their 
Israelite  blood  (Ezr.  2^-^;  see  further  Mey.  Ent.^^^).  This 
statement  is  inconceivable  after  Ezr.  9/.  The  separation  had 
already  taken  place  according  to  that  story. — And  they  siood  and 
made  confession  of  their  sins  and  of  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers]. 
The  sin  of  themselves  and  of  their  fathers  was  the  failure  to 
observe  the  law. — 3.  And  they  stood  upon  their  place  and  read]. 
The  subject  strictly  is  the  seed  of  Israel,  v.  2.  Probably  the 
Levites  of  v.  ^  are  really  meant. — The  fo^irth  of  the  day  and  a 
fourth  they  made  confession  and  prostrated  themselves  to  Yahiveh 
their  God].  The  assembly  was  apparently  held  only  in  the  morn- 
ing, as  that  was  the  duration  of  Ezra's  reading,  8^.  Half  of  the 
morning  was  spent  in  reading  the  law  and  the  other  half  in 
bemoaning  its  long  neglect. — 4.  And  there  stood  upon  the  stairs 
of  the  Levites]  cannot  be  right;  for  we  know  of  no  such  stairs, 
though  of  course  ignorance  is  not  equivalent  to  knowledge. 
But  the  place  of  the  assembly  is  the  same  as  in  c.  8,  and  Levites 
is  the  body  whose  names  are  recited.  We  may  easily  translate : 
and  there  stood  upon  the  elevation,  the  wooden  platform  already 
described,  8*.  Eight  Levites  are  named,  three  common  with 
8^,  Jeshua,  Bani,  and  Sherebiah;  two  Banis  and  a  Buni  (for 
all  of  which  C5  has  son  or  sons)  make  the  list  suspicious. — A?id 
they  cried  ivilh  a  loud  voice  unto  Yahiveh  their  God].  The  Levites 
were  characterised  by  their  loud  voices,  doubtless  the  result  of 
cultivation.  They  wanted  to  be  heard  by  the  whole  assembly. 
So  they  had  silenced  the  crowd  by  their  high  voices  penetrating 
even  through  the  loud  wailing  of  the  people,  8'^  It  looks  as 
if  we  should  have  "unto  the  people"  instead  of  "unto  Yahweh," 
for  in  V.  ^  the  Levites  address  the  assembly.  It  may  be  that 
the  Levites  led  the  people  in  chanting  some  psalm. — 5.  And  the 
Levites  said],  this  time  to  the  assembled  people.  There  follows 
a  list  of  eight  names  of  Levites,  the  same  number  as  in  v.  ^, 
and  surely  we  should  expect  the  same  names.  Our  text,  how- 
ever, has  but  five  in  common.  This  is  an  unmistakable  sign  of 
corruption. — The  direction  to  the  people  is  rise,  bless  Yahiveh 
OUR  [as  d]  God  from  everlasting  to  everlasting].    The  call  is  for 


NEHEMIAH    S-IO  365 

the  people  to  rise  from  their  prostration,  v.  ^  in  order  to  praise 
Yahweh  and  to  be  ready  to  Hsten. — The  people  obeyed,  doubt- 
less following  the  Levites  in  some  ritual,  and  they  blessed  the  name 
of  thy  glory  and  exalted  above  all  blessing  and  praise].  For  this 
jumble  (^  has  tried  to  make  sense  by  rendering :  bless  the  name 
of  the  glory  exalted  above  all  with  joy  and  with  praise.  H  makes 
"exalted"  a  predicate  of  "name"  and  thus  helps  to  determine 
the  true  meaning:  and  they  blessed  his  glorious  name  exalting  it 
above  all  blessing  and  praise.  A  slight  change  in  the  text  is  re- 
quired, but  some  correction  is  essential. 

96-39^  The  confession. 

This  is  much  like  many  other  prayers,  exhortations,  and  addresses 
found  in  the  Bible,  the  NT.  parallel  being  the  speech  of  Stephen  (Acts 
7).  It  is  quite  unlike  the  confession  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  9),  and  if  that  be 
genuine,  as  I  doubt  not,  this  one  is  a  production  from  another  source 
incorporated  by  the  Chr.  The  state  of  the  Gk.  text  shows  a  passage 
so  well  preserved  that  it  may  be  well  regarded  as  a  late  insertion.  It 
is  in  substance  a  review  of  Israel's  history,  dealing  with  events  well 
known  to  us.  The  purpose  is  to  show  God's  goodness  to  Israel  and 
Israel's  failure  to  respond.  The  spirit  of  the  passage  is  prophetic 
rather  than  priestly.  It  clearly  belongs  to  the  Gk.  age,  v.  i.,  vv. ''  '■ 
On  the  character  of  the  prayer,  v.  further  Kost.s^ff  ,  Sta.^". 

In  MT.  the  confession  is  anonymous,  and  it  is  natural  to  assume  that 
it  is  a  continuation  of  the  Lev.  call  to  prayer  preceding.  The  prayer 
must  come  from  an  individual,  and  (S  has  a  prefatory  note,  and  Ezra 
said.     From  this  note  the  c.  has  been  associated  wrongly  with  Ezra. 

6.  Thou  alone  art  Yahweh]  is  obviously  not  original,  God 
being  the  proper  word.  The  change  was  presumably  due  to 
an  illogical  Yahwist. — As  usual,  the  history  goes  back  to  the 
creation  as  told  in  Gn.  Yahweh  had  created  not  only  the 
heavens,  but  also  the  heaven  of  heavens],  an  expression  found  in 
Dt.  10^*  and  elsewhere.  It  would  naturally  be  the  heavens 
par  excellence,  somewhat  as  we  say  the  seventh  heaven. — 7. 
The  history  jumps  to  Abraham  as  the  real  father  of  the  Hebrew 
people.  The  historical  points  are  the  migration  from  Ur- 
Kasdim  and  the  change  of  name,  both  events  from  P. — 8. 
Thou  didst  find  his  heart  faithful  before  thee]  might  be  a  reference 


366  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

to  Abraham's  whole  life  of  fidelity,  but  the  author  had  especially 
in  mind  the  great  act  of  obedience  (Gn.  22). — The  land  of  the 
Canaanite],  In  the  E.  story  of  this  covenant  ten  nations  are 
mentioned  (Gn.  i5^^'^0>  of  which  we  find  but  six  here.  This 
same  list  is  found  in  Ex.  23^^  Jos.  24". — And  thou  didst  es- 
tablish thy  words,  for  thou  art  righteous].  God,  though  foreseeing 
the  poor  use  which  would  be  made  of  his  boon,  nevertheless 
from  his  own  righteousness,  which  includes  truthfulness,  must 
make  good  his  promise. — 9.  We  plunge  into  the  midst  of  the 
Egyptian  bondage,  for  the  author  is  reciting  the  most  con- 
spicuous of  God's  gracious  acts  toward  his  people. — Thou  didst 
hear  their  cry  at  the  Red  Sea].  This  refers  to  the  cry  when  the 
pursuing  Egyptians  overtook  the  fleeing  Israelites  (Ex,  14*°). 
— 10.  And  thou  didst  give  signs  and  wonders].  We  naturally 
think  of  the  plagues,  but  these  long  preceded  the  wonders  at 
the  Red  Sea,  which  in  themselves  would  be  sufficient.  The 
author  does  not  keep  strictly  to  chronological  order,  and  the 
plagues  were  doubtless  in  his  mind. — The  reason  for  interven- 
tion is  now  given:  for  thou  [Yahweh]  knowest  that  they  [the 
Egyptians]  acted  presumptuously  against  them].  The  same  ex- 
pression occurs  in  a  speech  of  Jethro's  reviewing  this  deliverance, 
Ex.  18".  The  presumption  consisted  in  the  pursuit  of  a  people 
to  whom  liberty  had  been  accorded. — And  thou  didst  make  for 
thyself  a  name  as  this  day].  Name  is  here  and  frequently  in  the 
OT.  nearly  equivalent  to  reputation. — 11.  Into  the  depths  like 
a  stone]  is  a  quotation  from  the  Song  of  the  Sea,  Ex.  15^;  thou 
didst  cast  replaces  "they  sank"  in  Ex.,  showing  the  speaker's 
conception  of  God's  intervention. — 12.  The  pillar  of  cloud  by 
day  and  pillar  of  fire  by  night  are  described  in  Ex.  1321,  where 
it  is  said  that  Yahweh  himself  was  in  the  pillars  or  columns. 
Our  passage  refines  the  earlier  theology  of  J.  Yahweh  leads 
the  people  by  the  pillars,  but  is  not  himself  in  them. — 13.  Here, 
too,  the  later  ideas  are  revealed;  though  Yahweh  is  said  to 
descend  upon  Mt.  Sinai,  he  spoke  with  the  people /row  heaven]. 
In  Ex.  1920  Yahweh  actually  descended  to  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tain and  spoke  to  Moses  face  to  face  (Dt,  5^  34"). — 14.  One 
part  of  the  law  is  emphasised:  thy  holy  sabbath  thou  didst  make 


NEHEMIAH   8-10  367 

known  to  them],  indicating  a  supremacy  for  this  law  such  as  we 
find  in  NT.  times  (Mk.  2"  «■  Lu.  13"  ^-  Ju.  5^8) .—15.  Bread 
from  heaven  thou  gavest  them  for  their  hunger].  The  story  of  the 
giving  of  the  manna  is  found  in  Ex.  16''  ^-  The  supposed 
miraculous  character  of  this  bread  makes  its  gift  one  of  the 
great  acts  of  God. — And  water  from  the  rock  thou  broughtest  out 
to  them  for  their  thirst],  v.  Ex.  17^,  and  a  longer  account  in  Nu. 
20^"^^. — To  go  in  to  take  possession  of  the  land]  as  we  find  com- 
manded in  Dt.  I*;  which  I  raised  my  hand  to  give  them].  We 
find  Yahweh  swore  to  give  Israel  the  land  of  Canaan  {v.  Gn. 
26'  Ex.  T^^^  Nu.  14^  32").  Raising  the  hand  is  the  gesture 
accompanying  the  oath  and  is  here  its  equivalent,  so  Ex.  6^ 
Nu.  1430  Ez.  2o28-  «  4714  Ps.  io626,  V.  on  8«.— 16.  The  list  of 
Yahweh's  gracious  acts  ends  and  the  speaker  turns  to  the  at- 
titude of  the  people  toward  God.  They  ajid  our  fathers  acted 
presumptuously].  They  are  the  people  of  Moses'  time;  our 
fathers  the  later  generations.  Yahweh  kept  his  compact,  but 
the  people  did  not. — Hardened  their  neck]  is  quoted  from  Dt, 
10^^,  and  V.  Je.  7^^  17^^  19^*  and  vv.  ^^-  ^9,  The  repetition  in 
v.  "  is  probably  a  copyist's  error. — 17.  The  rebellious  spirit  of 
Israel  is  elaborated  after  the  manner  of  some  of  the  prophets 
to  impress  the  hearers:  atid  they  refused  to  listen  [obey],  nor  did 
they  remember  thy  wottders  which  thou  didst  with  them].  Then 
we  come  again  to  a  specific  act  of  insubordination :  and  they  ap- 
pointed a  leader  to  return  to  their  servitude  in  Egypt].  By  the 
accidental  dropping  of  a  letter,  MT.  has  in  their  rebellion,  v. 
Nu.  14. — But  the  salvation  of  Israel  was  assured  from  the 
character  of  God.  Our  text  runs:  thou  art  a  God  of  forgiveness, 
gracious  and  merciful,  slow  to  anger  and  abundant  in  loving  kind- 
ness]. With  the  exception  of  of  forgiveness  these  are  conven- 
tional attributes  of  God  and  are  found  verbatim  in  Ex.  34^ 
Jon.  42. — 18.  Nevertheless  [with  reference  to  the  preceding] 
thou  didst  not  abandon  them].  In  spite  of  God's  overlooking 
their  wrong  in  resolving  to  choose  a  leader  of  their  own  in  place 
of  the  one  appointed  by  him,  they  proceed  to  a  further  act  of 
gross  apostasy.  EV^.  render  yea,  when  (so  BDB.)  and  con- 
nect with  V.  1',  but  the  above-named  connection  is  better. — 


368  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

And  ihey  committed  great  blaspliemies].  This  may  refer  to  the 
idolatry  just  described,  but  it  is  more  natural  to  refer  it  to  the 
general  faithless  attitude  of  early  Israel  toward  God. — 19. 
And  thou  by  reason  of  thy  abundant  compassion  didst  not  abandon 
them  in  the  desert],  evidence  of  the  long  suffering  of  God  as  de- 
scribed in  V.  1^ — 20.  Thy  good  spirit  thoti  gavest  to  make  them 
wise].  A  Greek  text  has  the  more  common  holy  spirit.  There 
is  no  reference  to  this  gift  in  the  Pentateuch,  for  Nu.  ii'^  deals 
with  quite  another  matter,  but  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  later 
conception,  as  we  find  the  same  idea  in  Is.  63". — 21.  This 
verse  is  a  free  quotation  of  passages  in  Dt.  S''-  *,  v.  Dr.  Dt. 
The  common  rendering  "swell"  is  not  so  good  as  "blister"  as 
a  description  of  the  trouble  caused  to  the  feet  by  long  marches. 
The  actual  hunger,  thirst,  and  other  privations  of  the  desert 
were  decidedly  minimised  by  those  who  looked  back  to  them 
from  a  later  period  of  time.— 22.  The  narrative  jumps  now  to 
the  time  when  Israel  emerged  from  the  desert  and  began  the 
permanent  conquest  of  the  land.  The  kingdoms  and  peoples  are 
explained  to  be  the  two  districts  conquered  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  while  still  under  Moses'  leadership.  Thou  didst  allot 
them  [the  kingdoms  and  peoples]  to  a  corner]  is  interpreted  to 
mean  "into  every  corner"  (BDB),  i.  e.,  the  land  was  divided 
to  its  utmost  extent.  The. rendering  of  EV*.  "after  their  por- 
tion" is  unjustifiable.  But  the  sense  is  vague  at  best,  and  the 
phrase  needless;  therefore  it  is  better  to  read  with  (S  allot  to 
them. — The  text  is  badly  confused  in  the  following:  and  they 
took  possession  of  the  land  of  Sihon  [and  the  laftd  of]  the  king  of 
Heshbon].  The  bracketed  words  are  an  accidental  repetition. 
For  the  history  v.  Nu.  21. — 23.  And  their  sons  thou  didst  multiply 
like  the  stars  of  heaven]  is  a  reference  to  the  promise  to  Abraham, 
Gn.  15^  22"  26''.  But  this  passage  may  come  from  Dt.  i^". 
With  V.  ^  we  are  brought  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and  so  to 
the  period  after  Moses. — 24 .  Their  kings  and  the  peoples  of  the 
lands  to  do  with  them  according  to  their  [Israel's]  pleasure].  The 
theory  that  Joshua  exterminated  the  whole  body  of  Canaan- 
ites  (Jos.  1-12)  finds  no  reflection  here. — 25.  The  expressions 
are  for  the  most  part  taken  from  Dt. :  fortified  cities,  3^,  houses 


NEHEMIAH    8-IO  369 

ftdl  of  everything  good,  cisterns  [already]  hewn,  vineyards  and  olive- 
yards,  is  condensed  from  6";  fat  land  occurs  in  Nu.  13^  with 
a  different  word  for  "land." — 26.  And  have  cast  thy  law  behind 
their  hack].  We  find  references  to  disobedient  persons  casting 
God  behind  the  back,  i  K.  14^  Ez.  23^^  The  phrase  is 
equivalent  to  turning  the  back  to  the  law  {cf.  Je.  2"),  and  so 
disregarding  it.  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  late  conception 
which  puts  the  law  where  earlier  writers  put  God. — Thy  proph- 
ets [standing  first  for  emphasis]  who  testified  against  them  to  turn 
them  back  to  thee,  they  have  slain].  Elsewhere  in  OT.  this  crime 
is  cited  only  by  Elijah,  i  K.  19'";  it  is  an  offence  emphasised  in 
NT.,  Mt.  51-  23=*'"  Lu.  II™  13^'  Acts  7"-  Rom.  ii^  Rev.  i6«  iS^*. 
The  slaying  of  the  prophets  was  a  peculiarly  obnoxious  crime, 
because  they  were  executing  the  will  of  Yahweh  (Je.  26^^). — 
27.  God's  efforts  being  thwarted,  punishment  was  inflicted: 
thou  didst  give  them  into  the  hand  [power]  of  their  tormentors,  and 
they  tormented  them,  and  in  the  time  of  their  torment  they  cried 
unto  thee],  so  we  may  reproduce  the  word-play  of  the  original. 
The  reference  is  not  to  any  specific  invasion,  but  is  a  general 
survey  of  the  early  period  as  portrayed  in  Ju.  The  moralising 
here  is  very  like  that  of  the  editor  of  Ju.  2"  ^■,  et  pass. — And 
ihou  didst  hear  from  heaven].  Emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  fact, 
as  the  speaker  reads  the  history,  that  whenever  Israel  cried  in 
distress  God  gave  relief. — And  according  to  thy  abundant  com- 
passions as  [v.  1*]  thou  didst  give  saviours].  The  saviours  are 
called  "judges"  (Ju.  o^^-^'^);  they  were  the  warlike  heroes 
Ehud,  Jerubbaal,  et  al. — 28.  But  when  they  had  a  respite],  as 
soon  as  the  punishment  was  withdrawn  and  conditions  were  fa- 
vourable, they  again  did  evil  before  thee,  and  thou  didst  abandon 
them  in  the  hand  of  their  enemies].  The  idea  is  that  Israel  was 
held  up  by  God's  hand,  and  as  soon  as  he  let  go,  setting  the 
enemy  free  to  act,  then  Israel  was  no  match  for  the  foe.  There 
follows  a  repetition  of  the  story  of  the  people's  distressful  cry 
and  Yahweh's  resumed  intervention. — Thou  didst  deliver  them 
according  to  thy  compassions  many  times].  "Many  times,"  as 
EV®.,  is  impossible  on  any  just  principles  of  Hebrew  syntax. 
"Many"  or  "abundant"  must  qualify  "compassions"  as  in 


370 


EZRA-NEHEMIAH 


vv.  "•  ".  "Times"  is  lacking  in  most  Greek  texts,  and  where 
it  occurs  it  introduces  v.  ^9.  "Many  times"  does  not  fit  in  with 
the  idea.  The  point  is  that  each  time  when  the  people  cried  Yah- 
weh  delivered  them.  What  we  should  rather  expect  is  from  their 
enemies. — 29 .  And  thou  didst  testify  against  them]  by  the  mouth 
of  the  prophets,  as  v.  2^  Here  the  object  is  to  bring  them  back 
to  thy  lau>\,  but  in  v.  ^e  to  thee.  God  and  the  law  are  practically 
identified  in  respect  to  Israel's  obedience. — Which  a  man  shall 
do  and  live  by  them]  is  a  quotation  from  Lv.  i8^  with  the  usual 
slight  inaccuracies. — 30.  The  first  clause  is  difficult;  EV*.  have: 
"Many  years  thou  didst  bear  with  them"  as  in  (§>^.  The  other 
Vrss.  render  literally.  Ryle  supposes  an  object,  "mercy,"  to 
be  omitted,  "prolong"  being  equivalent  to  "prolong  mercy." 
But  in  Ps.  36'°  loi^^  the  object  is  found.  Such  a  sense  is  suit- 
able. The  passage  may  be  rendered :  thou  didst  draw  many  years 
unto  them,  i.  e.,  a  long-suffering  God  gave  them  many  years  of 
grace. — And  thou  didst  give  them  into  the  hand  of  the  peoples  of 
the  lands]  refers  to  the  final  catastrophes  resulting  from  long- 
continued  infidelity,  therefore  the  peoples  are  the  Babylonians. 
32.  And  now].  The  speaker  leaps  from  historic  retrospect 
to  the  present  consequences  of  the  facts  stated  above. — Our 
God,  the  great,  the  mighty  and  the  terrible  God,  keeping  covenant 
and  mercy].  A  good  instance  of  the  late  usage  showing  a  fond- 
ness for  a  long  list  of  divine  attributes. — Let  not  all  the  hardship 
which  has  found  [befallen]  us  seem  little  before  thee].  The  word 
hardship  is  almost  technical  like  "the  exile,"  referring  espe- 
cially to  the  bondage  in  Egypt,  Nu.  20^^  The  plea  is  that  God 
would  not  minimise  the  humiliation  which  his  people  endured. 
These  hardships  had  befallen  us,  our  kings,  our  princes,  and  our 
priests,  and  our  prophets,  and  our  fathers,  and  all  thy  people]. 
The  long  catalogue  is  made  to  emphasise  the  extent  of  the  hard- 
ships which  God  is  asked  not  to  underestimate. — 33.  But  thou 
art  innocent  [literally,  righteous]  in  regard  to  all  that  has  come  upon 
us].  Great  as  the  degradation  of  Israel,  this  prophet  does  not 
charge  God  with  injustice.  Indeed,  the  whole  passage  is  meant 
to  show  the  singular  forbearance  of  God. — 34.  This  wickedness 
is  described  now  as  disobedience  of  the  laws,  commandments, 


NEHEMIAH    8-IO  371 

and  testimonies,  in  which  wrong  the  higher  classes,  kings, 
princes,  priests,  and  fathers,  were  involved  as  well  as  the  lowly. 
— 35.  And  they  in  their  kingdom  and  in  thy  great  good  which  thou 
gavest  to  them  and  in  the  wide  and  fat  land  which  thou  gavest 
before  them  have  not  served  thee].  This  literal  rendering  brings 
out  the  extreme  awkwardness  of  an  accumulation  of  phrases 
such  as  some  of  these  late  writers  loved. — And  have  not  turned 
from  their  evil  deeds].  The  purpose  of  God  in  bestowing  his 
gifts  was  to  make  the  people  righteous  as  well  as  prosperous. 
— 36.  The  writer  now  comes  to  the  clearest  description  of  the 
present  plight,  a  description  which  points  insistently  to  the 
miseries  of  the  Greek  period.  A  ltd  behold,  we  are  to-day  bond- 
men; and  the  land,  which  thou  gavest  to  our  fathers  to  eat  its  fruit 
and  its  good,  behold  we  are  bondmen  upon  it].  The  good  refers 
to  the  general  abundant  products  of  the  land  "flowing  with 
milk  and  honey."  Israel  was  familiar  with  bondage  from  the 
experience  in  Egypt  and  in  Babylon.  Now  they  are  suffering 
bondage  in  the  holy  land  itself.  The  condition  is  different 
from  that  of  the  Persian  period,  which  was  regarded  as  a  re- 
lief from  the  bondage  in  Babylon. — 37.  Atid  its  abundant  yield 
goes  to  the  kings  whom  thou  hast  placed  over  us  on  account  of  our 
sins].  The  land  is  still  fruitful,  but  its  wealth  enriches  only 
the  foreign  kings. — And  over  our  bodies  they  rule].  Words  could 
scarcely  be  found  which  would  make  Israel's  humiliation  deeper. 
The  word  for  bodies  also  means  corpse.  The  bodies  of  these 
bondmen  are  virtually  dead  bodies,  for  the  people  are  the  mere 
tools  of  foreign  tyrants. — And  with  our  cattle  they  do  according 
to  their  pleasure].  That  is,  the  foreign  rulers  take  what  they 
want  and  the  nominal  owners  get  what  is  left.  A  man  might 
have  great  herds,  but  he  could  never  tell  how  much  benefit 
would  accrue  to  him. — And  we  are  in  great  distress].  Since  the 
oppressors  took  Israel's  property  at  will,  the  yield  both  of  the 
soil  and  of  the  herd,  we  may  regard  the  distress  as  including 
dire  poverty,  though  the  term  also  includes  the  anguish  of  soul 
endured  by  a  liberty-loving  people,  bearing  a  galling  servitude 
on  the  land  which  was  theirs  by  divine  gift.  Yet  there  is  no 
murmur  against  the  ways  of  a  mysterious  Providence.    In  all 


372  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

their  bitterness  there  is  only  self-rej)roach.  God's  hand  is  plain 
in  the  people's  degradation,  but  his  course  is  abundantly  jus- 
tified by  Israel's  sins. 

1,  on^hy  nciN'i]  lacking  in  (gBAX.  (gL  iias  xal  x6vc<;  Ixl  t^?  xe9aX^<; 
auTuv  =  ss'e'xn-Sj; 'n. — 2.  jrir]  (S  ol  <j\oi. — ':2]  <B  utou. — 3.  nirr]  lack- 
ing in  OJBAS. — n>p'3->i  orn  n^i'^i]  lacking  in  (gB-^^.  di-  has  trb  x^apTov 
Tfj?  TjsJispas  in  both  clauses. — ^^^inr]  ®  adds  -zCi  xupttp. — mrrS]  lacking 
in  C5^. — 4.  '^S'cip  'J3>]  (6  xat  ulol  KaSiJLnjA. — '::d  'J3]  lacking  in  <&^, 
utol  Xavavt-^'^',  Xcovsvta;^  =  ni:j3. — 5.  Of  the  names  (Sban  has  only 
'IrjaoGi;  xat  KaSyiti^X.  i-  has  all  the  names  exc.  the  two  £a«7'j.-^D3''nSN] 
d  Tov  Oebv  -fjjxwv. — 3Sn!;i  njij]  (&l  tt^s  S^St}?  tou  uicepu(j>ou(jLlvou;  rd. 
n2D. — acne]  is  a  Polal  ptc,  the  onh'  case  of  its  use.  i2-ic,  exalting 
it,  would  be  better. — n^na]  <g  czYaXXiacst  =  nj:-\. — 6,  ®  prefaces  to 
MT.  xal  elxsv  "Eapa?  =  nitjj  isn-'V — D'ccm]  lacking  in  ^ea, — aN3i-] 
(Hban  .j^v  CTTaatv  aiittov  =  Dicy. — 7.  nin>]  lacking  in  (gs. — oi3n]  (g=^i- 
A^paa(x  as  in  v.  >>. — -iin]  (5  xwpa?  =  V^N. — 8.  nnSi]  (g  adds  cfirw;  d^ 
adds  Euatwv  to  the  list  of  peoples. — .inS^]  lacking  in  (&bas_ — Pq^  r~r-f~, 
"I'^l  rd.  •\^-\th-\  ^^. — 9.  ^id]  gpjOpdv,  as  alwaj's  exc.  Is.  63-,  when  it  stands 
for  aiK. — 10.  a^PODi]  (g  adds  sv  Aiyutctw. — 15.  t"n]  (S  I^'  i;v. — 17. 
ancD]  O9B  ^v  AtyuTUTw  =  0^X03. — 20.  njian]  (|i-  Sytov. — 21.  nan  nS] 
(gL  xal  ouy.  sic£0£T)6T;aav  pTj[j.axoq,  reading  "lai  ^2^D^. — 22.  nss'^]  (|ban 
aiTot?  =  an"?,  CS^  eic,  TCpoacoxov  =  a''JoS. — 23  f.  inxn  .  .  .  Nn*^]  ®ban  jjas 
only  xal  sxXT)pov6[ji,T()aav  dtuTifjv. — ^'on  |'-!wsn]  (g  y'Ov  twv  Xavavaiwv. — 25. 
TMTi-if  nmNi]  lacking  in  (6ban\_25,  aoisn]  ®i-  adds  oji;  oux  e^sXaxo- 
tJiTjaav  =  i3sn  mS  ns-.x  as  Dt.  6". — 28,  avnj-]  lacking  in  (5ban.  (|l  has 
xal  ev  xatpoi?  as  beginning  of  v.  =9.  For  niai]  we  should  rd.  aonn,  as 
vv.  "■  27. 3i_ — 3>ny]  may  be  a  corruption  of  annso.  There  is  no  possible 
legitimate  construction  of  the  text  as  it  stands. — 29.  nirn  ncni]  lack- 
ing in  Q5BAN_ — 31.  ':<x]  (g  foxupoq,  so  Snh  in  v.  ==. — 35.  anu'^cc]  (6  ga- 
atXet?  aou. — 36  f.  niia  .  .  .  naio-nNi]  lacking  in  O^ban. 

10  (EV.  9^^-10'^).  A  list  of  names  on  a  sealed  tablet  and 
an  agreement  to  provide  supplies  for  the  temple-worship. 

The  c.  is  written  in  the  first  p.  pi.  The  expression  "our  princes, 
our  Lev.,  our  pr."  is  striking,  and  the  ending  is  in  perfect  accord:  "we 
did  not  neglect  the  house  of  our  God."  This  construction  is  lost  oc- 
casionally. V.  28  begins  with  third  p.,  but  the  text  shades  off  into  the 
first  p.  again  in  v.  -'  •>;  so  again  in  v.  *",  the  original  form  being  resumed 
at  the  end.  The  passage  is  therefore  neither  from  N.  nor  the  Chr. 
To  any  one  carefully  studying  the  characteristics  of  N.  no  argument 
is  needed  to  show  that  the  governor  had  no  part  in  this  composition. 
We  miss  altogether  his  sharp,  brief,  and  clear  expressions.     I  am  per- 


NEHEMIAH    8-IO  373 

suaded  that  the  Chr.  never  used  the  first  p.  cxc.  occasionally  in  the 
expansion  of  N.  or  E.,  and  very  little  then.  Neither  is  the  c.  from  E., 
for  it  was  not  written  by  a  pr.  This  may  be  made  clear  from  a  single 
expression:  "We  brought  the  best  of  our  coarse  meal  ...  to  the  pr. 
.  .  .  and  the  tithe  of  our  land  to  the  Lev.,"  v. '«.  The  conclusion  is 
therefore  apparent  that  the  c.  is  from  the  pen  of  a  layman  of  the  period, 
possibly  a  prophet,  who  was  a  most  zealous  supporter  of  the  temple- 
worship. 

The  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  time  of  Ezra.  In  words 
there  is,  indeed,  much  about  the  law;  but  the  inevitable  result  of  a  care- 
ful study  shows  that  the  measures  taken  for  the  support  of  the  temple 
were  not  the  consequence  of  legal  enactment,  but  of  mutual  agreement. 
It  is  prob.,  therefore,  that  the  phrases  referring  to  the  law  are  inter- 
polated or  to  be  interpreted  in  a  general  sense. 

The  measures  agreed  upon  are:  (i)  not  to  intermarry  with  foreigners; 
(2)  not  to  purchase  from  those  who  sold  merchandise  on  the  Sabbath 
day;  (3)  to  keep  the  seventh  year;  (4)  to  impose  a  cash  tax  upon  them- 
selves for  the  support  of  the  temple;  (5)  to  provide  wood  for  burning 
upon  the  altar;  (6)  to  offer  the  first  fruits;  and  (7)  to  pay  the  tithes. 
Now  four  of  these  matters  (i,  2,  5,  7)  are  identical  with  the  reforms 
of  Neh.'s  second  administration,  c.  13.  Indeed,  all  exc.  (3)  are  prac- 
tically covered  by  those  reforms.  The  most  fitting  place  for  this  c, 
therefore,  is  found  by  placing  it  as  a  sequel  to  c.  13.  Neh.'s  habit 
was  to  put  the  people  under  a  solemn  pledge  to  continue  the  right 
course  instituted  by  him,  5'-  13".  We  have  here  a  story,  by  one  of 
the  participants,  of  the  measures  taken  by  the  people  to  perpetuate 
Neh.'s  reforms.  The  lists  of  names  in  their  present  forms  are  all  sus- 
picious. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  c.  came  to  be  misplaced.  By  its  structure, 
being  in  first  p.  pi.,  it  has  an  external  association  with  the  long  prayer 
in  c.  9. '  By  its  devotion  to  the  cult,  and  by  the  measures  taken  to 
maintain  it,  which  could  easily  be  connected  with  the  keeping  of  the 
law,  it  afforded  an  easy  sequel  to  the  story  of  Ezra's  promulgation  of 
the  law.  In  the  original  form  this  c.  follows  the  Deut.  law,  which  was, 
of  coiu-se,  well  known  before  Ezra;  indeed,  it  is  the  basis  of  Neh.'s 
reforms.  The  law-book  of  Ezra  was  not  Dt..  but  either  the  priestly 
law  or  the  whole  Pentateuch. 

On  the  character  of  these  regulations,  esp.  in  relation  to  the  Priest 
Code,  V.  Kost."ff-,  GAS.  Jer.  i,""-,  Schurer,  Jewish  People,  div.  ii, 
vol.  i,»'  «•. 

lO'"""*.  A  list  of  priests,  Levites,  and  chiefs  upon  a  sealed 
record. — 1.  And  in  all  this]  is  inserted  by  the  Chronicler  to 
make  a  connection  with  the  preceding,  cf.  13^,  "and  in  all  this 


374  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

time";  but  the  connection  will  scarcely  hold  here.  The  usual 
conception  is  that  the  phrase  means  in  view  of  this,  i.  e.,  the 
condition  described  in  9^-^^ 

We  make  a  sure  covenant]  RV.  The  phrase  is  difficult,  but  it  is 
hard  to  get  this  meaning,  as  "covenant"  is  lacking  in  %  The  words 
literally  mean  we  are  cutting  support,  and  "cut"  is  not  equivalent  to 
"make  a  covenant";  njDN  occurs  elsw.  only  in  11=',  where  it  is  a  txt. 
err.  By  changing  the  pointing  the  word  would  mean  truly  or  accu- 
rately. But  a  conception  like  "pledging  faith"  (BDB.)  does  not  fit 
in  here  at  all.  We  should  render,  we  are  engraving  correctly,  referring 
to  the  list  of  names,  and  thus  the  word  hj^n  is  removed  from  the  Heb. 
lexicon.  Thus  understood,  the  phrase  prepares  the  way  for  what 
follows,  and  writing  upon  the  sealed  (record)].  This  is  very  different 
from  the  usual  translation.  "Seal  unto  it,"  RV.,  or  "are  at  the  seal- 
ing," RV.™  in  V. ",  cannot  be  wrung  from  the  text.  The  idea  of  at- 
testing an  agreement  to  obey  the  law  which  had  been  rd.  is  as  early 
as  (5,  but  it  comes  from  wresting  an  impossible  mng.  from  misunder- 
stood words.  Indeed,  this  conception  may  be  as  old  as  the  Chr.'s 
editing.  The  conj.  "and"  must  be  omitted  before  "upon."  As  in 
Je.  32»<  amn  is  the  part  of  a  clay  cylinder  or  tablet  which  is  sealed  up 
or  covered  with  an  outer  envelope.  The  writer  gives  the  list  of  names 
which  they  wrote  upon  the  inner  part  of  the  cylinder.  For  what  pur- 
pose the  record  was  made  we  are  not  informed,  but  the  character  and 
size  of  the  list  forbid  our  thinking  of  a  catalogue  of  people  who  were 
inspired  by  Ezra  to  subscribe  to  an  agreement  to  obey  the  law. 

Our  princes,  our  Levites,  our  priests]  is  made  the  subject  of 
a  non-existent  verb  in  the  Vrss.,  ancient  and  modern.  The 
words  may  possibly  be  interpreted  as  appositives  to  "me," 
but  are  more  likely  mere  headings  to  the  list  of  names  which 
follows.  The  words  describe  the  composition  of  that  Ust, 
though  in  reverse  order. 

2-9.  The  list  of  priests. — At  the  head  stands  in  our  text  Neh.  the 
governor  the  son  of  Haclialiah.  The  doubled  specification  identifies  him 
with  the  wall-builder,  but  his  name  does  not  fit  in  a  catalogue  of  pr., 
and  may  be  an  interpolation  here.  The  official  title  is  not  found  in 
the  best  Gk.  Vrss.,  evidence  of  a  growth.  There  is  a  list  of  22  priestly 
names,  many  of  which  are  common  to  other  catalogues.  The  absence 
of  Eliashib's  name  has  caused  much  discussion  (Ryle,  Ca«oK,").  It 
is  either  an  accidental  omission  or  the  event  belongs  to  the  high  priest- 


NEHEMIAH    8-1 0  375 

hood  of  his  successor.  10-14.  The  list  of  Levites. — There  are  17 
names,  but  there  are  grave  uncertainties  about  the  text. — 10.  Jes.  tlie 
son  of  Azanialr]  is  thus  differentiated  from  the  contemporary  of  Zer.,  but 
it  is  the  same  Jes.  as  in  other  groups  of  Lev. — Of  the  sons  of  Ilenadad], 
V.  Ezr.  3'. — 11.  And  their  brethren]  often  recurs  in  Levitical  Hsts,  and 
generally  is  interjected  awkwardly  as  here.  The  implication  seems  to 
be  that  the  names  which  follow  are  the  brethren  of  Jes.  Binuni,  and 
Kadmiel.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  relationship  is  of  blood  or  of 
office.  15-28.  The  list  of  princes. — They  are  called  here  heads  of  the 
people,  a  title  equivalent  to  the  more  common  heads  of  the  fathers, 
Ezr.  1 5.  Many  of  these  names  recur  in  the  list,  Ezr.  2.  On  the  names 
V.  Gray,  Heb.  Pr.  iV.'^f-,  Sm.  Listen,^K 

1.  hit]  05  TouTots. — Dinnn-Sy]  (g  licta^payfl^ouaiv  =  i?3nnM.  But  as  this 
is  the  only  occurrence  of  this  compound  in  05  (save  that  Q|l  has  it  in 
V.  ■),  and  as  we  find  in  v.  ^  Ixl  Tciv  aippaYt^6vxuv,  it  is  easy  to  find  in  the 
prefix  ixi  an  attestation  of  the  Sy  of  MT.  That  is  the  correct  reading. 
onn  might  mean  "to  attest  by  seal,"  as  given  in  BDB.,  but  how  that 
can  be  worked  into  a  pass,  with  a  prep,  is  incomprehensible,  v.  s.  <& 
does,  however,  attest  the  pi.  in  both  cases  (s-icirin  as  v. ').  The  same 
form  must  belong  to  both  places,  and  the  sg.  is  preferable. — 2 .  Nntrnnn] 
lacking  in  CS^an.  in  l  it  is  an  obvious  insertion,  as  we  find  a  conj. 
6  xocl  'AeapaaaOdcc;. — 11.  aninx]  05  ol  d5sX(pol  auToO. — Na^Sp]  (S^  Kavxa. 
The  five  names  following  this  are  wanting  in  (&^. — 14.  u^jo  <ja]  (§bn 
ulol  Bevia[i.etv  (Bctvouatat^,  Bavouta^). — 15  f.  ''J3  'ia]  05^  utol  Bavt.  ^ 
has  only  ulbt.  Here  the  names  in  05  are  confused  in  division  as  in 
V.  *.  B  has  Bavt  aq  FaS  ^TjSat  e  Aavta. — 20.  "31:]  Qr.  ■'3:,  (Si^^  Bwvat 
OJ13),  NugatAL.— 22.  j;n^]  lacking  in  d^,  IeSSouxA.— 25  f .  As  in  vv.  <  '• 
"  '•  there  is  confusion  here.  CS^  has  <l>aSa  sec;  aco  Bijx  paouiie  aa  Bava 
(j,(z  Aatzta. 

29  f .  The  compact  to  obey  certain  requirements  of  the  law.  The 
whole  of  V.  29  is  the  subject  of  the  verb  in  v.  ^.  To  get  the 
sense  the  whole  must  be  taken  together :  the  rest  of  the  people, 
the  priests,  the  Levites,  the  porters,  the  singers,  the  Nethinim  and 
every  one  who  had  separated  himself  from  the  peoples  of  the  lands 
unto  the  law  of  God,  their  wives,  their  sons  and  their  daughters, 
every  one  knowing  how  to  understand  (30)  adhering  to  their  breth- 
ren, their  chiefs,  and  coming  under  a  curse  and  an  oath  to  walk  in 
the  law  of  God,  which  was  given  by  the  hand  of  Moses  the  servant 
of  God,  and  to  observe  and  do  all  the  commandments  of  Yahweh 
our  God  afid  his  judgments  and  his  statutes].,    This  long  state- 


376  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

ment  in  f|  lacks  a  finite  verb,  and  can  therefore  hardly  be  in 
its  original  form,  unless  it  was  a  part  of  a  still  longer  sentence 
the  rest  of  which  does  not  appear  here.  It  is  like  much  other 
work  from  the  pen  of  the  Chronicler.  Kost.  notes  that  the 
people  accept  not  a  new  law,  but  an  old  one  (Wied.^^). — Every 
one  knowing  how  to  understand]  is  an  appositive  to  sons  and 
daughters  {v.  8^). — 30.  Adhering  unto  their  brethren]  implies  that 
this  large  group  were  following  the  lead  of  others  in  taking 
an  oath  to  obey  the  law.  But  it  is  singular  to  find  the  whole 
body  of  temple  ofl&cers  among  the  last  ones  to  subscribe  to  the 
law.  The  words  may  equally  well  be  rendered  prevailing  upon 
their  brethren,  and  thus  the  situation  would  be  reversed  and 
this  list  would  give  the  leaders  in  the  oath  of  subscription  a 
more  natural  situation. — Their  chiefs]  stands  in  opposition  to 
their  brethren  and  limits  the  meaning  too  closely,  especially  if 
the  sense  above  given  is  correct. — Yahweh  our  Lord]  is  an  error. 
The  passage  is  Elohistic,  God  occurring  three  times;  it  is  written 
in  the  third  person  throughout,  and  we  should  have  here  simply 
God.     Yahweh  is  wanting  in  two  Greek  mss. 

j^Q3i-4o^  The  regulations  agreed  upon. — This  is  in  the 
first  person  and  represents  the  people's  point  of  view,  as  the 
priests  and  Levites  are  spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  It  is  a 
different  source  from  w.-^^-. — 31.  And  that  we  will  not  give 
our  daughters].  This  shows  that  we  are  dealing  with  the  specific 
forms  of  an  agreement,  and  that  the  proper  introduction  has 
been  lost  in  the  Chronicler's  arrangement. — 32.  And  the  peoples 
of  the  land  who  are  bringing  wares  and  all  grains  on  the  sabbath 
day  to  sell,  we  will  not  take  from  them  on  the  sabbath  nor  on  a 
holy  day].  This  also  connects  with  13^^  ^■.  Here  only  for- 
eigners are  violating  the  Sabbath,  while  in  13^^  ^-  Judeans  are 
guilty,  though  only  Tyrians  are  named  as  selling  wares  in 
Jerusalem  on  the  Sabbath.  But  the  point  here  is  the  agreement 
not  to  buy  on  the  Sabbath. — And  we  will  forego  the  yth  year  and 
every  debt].  The  law  that  no  harvest  should  be  gathered  in  the 
7th  year  is  found  in  the  earliest  code,  Ex.  23"  ' ,  a  law  greatly 
elaborated  in  the  later  codes,  Dt.  15'""  Lv.  25' ^  The  remis- 
sion of  the  debts  is  the  one  obligation  of  the  7th  year  in  Dt., 


NEHEMIAH   8-IO  377 

hence  the  remission  of  the  7th  year  may  here  refer  to  debts  and 
not  to  land. — In  the  passage  following  we  come  into  a  different 
atmosphere. — 33.  And  we  established  over  us  commandments]. 
The  plain  inference  is  rather  starthng  that  the  people  them- 
selves made  ordinances  to  do  the  things  prescribed  in  the  law. 
It  seems  a  necessary  impUcation  that  we  are  here  dealing  with 
the  origin  of  these  laws. — To  place  upon  ourselves  the  third  of  a 
shekel  yearly  for  the  service  of  the  house  of  our  God].  The  temple 
tax  according  to  the  law  was  a  half-shekel,  Ex.  30^^  36^''  Mt. 
17"  Jos.  BJ.  vii,  6,  6.  The  provision  made  at  this  time  by 
the  people  was  afterward  apparently  raised,  a  further  evidence 
that  we  are  here  dealing  with  origins. — 34  is  a  statement  of 
the  purposes  for  which  the  temple  tax  was  to  be  employed. 
It  looks  like  an  elaboration  by  the  Chronicler. — For  the  show- 
bread],  literally,  the  bread  of  the  row,  because  this  bread  was  ar- 
ranged in  two  rows  of  six  cakes  each,  Lv.  24*  f-.  The  keeping 
of  bread  at  the  sanctuary  is  at  least  as  old  as  David,  i  S.  21'-^. 
The  term  show-bread  is  due  to  Tindale's  rendering  D*'25  Dn?,  Ex. 
25**,  "bread  of  presence,"  "bread  to  show  Yahweh,"  v.  DB.  s.  v. 
— For  the  continual  meal-offering,  a  vegetable  offering  in  con- 
tradistinction to  the  common  animal  sacrifices.  The  reference 
must  be  to  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifices  of  a  lamb,  a 
meal-offering  accompanying  it,  Ex.  29^*  ^-  Nu.  28'  ^■. — And  all 
the  work  of  the  house  of  our  God].  This  use  of  the  temple  tax  has 
already  been  specified  in  v.  ^^,  but  with  service  in  place  of  work. 
The  latter  term  in  our  books  usually  refers  to  the  building,  the 
term  service  to  the  ritual.  The  phrase  scarcely  belongs  here. 
In  2  Ch.  24*-  ^  we  have  a  reference  to  this  tax  as  collected  for 
the  restoration  of  the  temple  under  King  Joash.  Is  it  possible 
that  we  have  here  a  fragment  of  the  temple-building  story 
which  has  been  misplaced? — 35.  And  we  cast  the  lots  with  respect 
to  the  wood-offering].  The  purpose  of  the  lots  must  have  been 
to  determine  the  order  in  which  certain  ones  should  supply  the 
wood  required  to  burn  upon  the  altar  of  Yahweh.  Those  who 
joined  in  the  lot  were  the  priests,  the  Levites  and  the  people].  The 
order  of  the  words  makes  the  text  suspicious,  and  the  classing 
of  the  priests  as  wood-carriers  is  a  further  indication  that  these 


378  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

words  do  not  belong  to  the  text.  But  the  Chronicler  cannot 
be  credited  with  this  phrase,  for  he  certainly  would  not  have 
assigned  such  work  to  priests. — At  appointed  times  yearly]. 
From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  lots  determined  who  were 
to  perform  the  duty  for  a  year,  bringing  the  wood  at  such  times 
as  it  was  needed. — As  it  is  written  in  the  law].  The  only  place 
in  the  law  to  which  this  can  refer  is  Ly.  6",  providing  that  the 
priest  shall  burn  wood  on  the  fire  every  morning  and  never  let 
the  fire  go  out.  The  wood  was  brought  to  the  temple  to  burn 
upon  the  altar  of  Yahweh  our  God  as  it  is  written  in  the  law. — 
36  f.  And  to  bring  in].  The  infinitive  requires  us  to  connect 
this  with  the  casting  of  lots,  v.  '*.  But  manifestly  the  people 
could  not  cast  lots  to  determine  who  was  to  do  what  the  law 
required  every  man  to  do.  A  better  connection  would  be  with 
V.  ^,  where  the  people  took  an  oath  to  obey  the  law.  The  con- 
nection is  broken  by  the  insertion  of  alien  fragments.  The 
specification  covers  the  first  fruits  of  the  land,  of  the  fruit  of 
every  tree  [as  v.  '^,  g.  v.],  of  the  sons  and  of  the  cattle,  of  the  herds 
and  of  the  flocks].  The  fruits  of  the  ground  and  of  the  trees 
were  to  be  brought  in  yearly,  the  others,  of  course,  whenever 
a  first  birth  occurred.  The  vegetable  offerings  were  to  be 
brought  in  for  the  house  of  Yahweh]  the  only  place  where 
Yahweh  occurs  in  this  passage — presumably  for  the  meal  or 
vegetable  offering.  The  animal  offerings  were  to  be  brought 
to  the  house  of  our  God  to  the  priests  who  minister  in  the  house  of 
our  God].  The  law  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  ground  is  old,  Ex. 
22^',  cf.  Dt.  26^  ^•.  For  the  fruits  of  the  tree  Ryle  refers  to 
Nu.  i8^^ '-,  but  that  passage  deals  with  the  products  of  the  land, 
which  there  belong  to  the  priest. — As  it  is  written  in  the  law]  is 
out  of  place  as  the  passage  stands.  But  the  words  which  fol- 
low, "herds  and  flocks,"  are  included  in  cattle  and  are  doubt- 
less a  marginal  gloss  which  has  crept  into  the  text.  The  law 
then  embraces  all  the  offerings  of  the  first-born. — 38.  And  the 
best  [or  first  fruits]  of  our  coarse  meal,  and  our  offerings,  and  the 
fruit  of  every  tree,  wine  and  oil,  we  brought  in  for  the  priests  to 
the  chambers  of  the  house  of  our  God].  These  offerings  are  not 
different  in  kind  from  those  enumerated  above,  w.  ^^  *•.    The 


NEHEMIAH    8-IO  379 

first  fruits  are  enumerated  there  as  well  as  here,  but  in  this 
case  the  offerings  are  for  the  use  of  the  priests,  and  so  were 
brought  to  the  store  chambers  of  the  temple,  whereas  those 
above  were  brought  to  the  temple,  presumably  for  sacrificial 
purposes.  In  the  oldest  times  there  was  a  somewhat  vague 
line  dividing  what  the  priest  might  have  for  his  own  use  from 
what  belonged  to  the  temple,  v.  1  S.  2*'  ^^  The  coarse  meal  is 
prescribed  in  Nu.  i$^°  in  the  same  words  as  here,  but  it  was  to 
be  lifted  up  (as  a  so-called  heave-offering)  to  Yahweh. — And 
the  tithe  of  our  land  [we  brought]  to  the  Levites].  The  tithe  both 
of  the  land  and  tree  is  declared  to  be  Yahweh's  in  Lv.  27^". — And 
they  are  the  Levites  who  are  collecting  the  tithes  in  all  the  cities  of 
our  labour].  "Cities  of  our  tillage,"  RV.,  is  not  very  happy. 
The  city  is  scarcely  the  place  for  collecting  the  tithes  of  the 
land.  The  meaning  may  be  the  hamlets  in  the  midst  of  the 
agricultural  districts. — 39.  The  priest  the  son  of  Aaron]  is  a 
definition  which  sharply  marks  the  division  of  priests  and 
Levites  as  belonging  to  separate  classes. — Was  with  the  Levites, 
when  the  Levites  collected  [or  levied]  the  tithes].  If  the  Levites 
went  about  the  country  collecting  tithes,  as  we  may  infer  from 
v.  '*,  a  priest  went  with  them,  not  for  the  purpose  of  seeing 
that  the  full  collections  were  made,  but  to  make  sure  that  a 
tenth  of  the  tithe  was  brought  to  the  temple  and  placed  at  the 
disposal  of  the  priests.  This  part  of  the  tithes  was  brought 
to  the  chambers  of  the  house  of  the  treasury],  according  to  MT. 
But  it  is  better  to  follow  a  Greek  text  and  read  house  of  God. 
The  chambers  were  the  store-rooms  at  the  temple.  There  was 
no  separate  building  used  as  a  sacred  treasury;  the  rooms  all 
around  the  holy  edifice  sufficed  for  that  purpose. — 40.  The 
offering  of  the  corn,  the  wine  and  the  oil],  which  here  is  brought 
to  the  temple  by  both  Levites  and  laymen,  is  the  tithe  described 
in  the  preceding  verses. — There  were  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary], 
the  receptacles  used  for  the  storage  of  the  contributions  brought 
in  for  sacred  use. — The  priests  who  minister],  or  the  officiating 
priests  who  resided  in  the  temple  chambers  during  their  term 
of  service,  or,  in  military  parlance,  tour  of  duty. — And  we  did 
not  neglect  the  house  of  our  God]  is  the  ending  of  the  original 


380  EZRA-NEHEMIAH 

document  which  described  the  plans  adopted  by  the  people  to 
furnish  the  temple  with  supplies  needed  for  the  sacrifices. 

29.  pan]  <!l  xal  auvCwv. — 30.  Dnnnx]  05  xaTTjpiaavTo  a5To6?  =  oniK. 
On  the  basis  of  this  text  Houtsma  proposes  niNna  and  renders  the 
passage:  "they  bound  themselves  for  their  brethren  through  a  curse" 
{ZAW.  1907,"). — nin>  nixc]  CS»b  evToX(i(?  -fj^tuv.  This  must  be  an  ac- 
cidental abr.  of  xup(ou  toO  Osou  -fitJiwv  as  found  in  (§1-. — rpm]  lacking  in 
C6B. — 31.  |.-ij  n"?  ntt'Ni]  05  xal  tou  ;i-J)  Souvat  and  so  making  this  a  part 
of  the  subscription  beginning,  ace.  to  05,  with  nsSS.  The  rendering 
is  interpretative  rather  than  a  witness  of  a  txt.  err. — 32.  Niyn]  CJi-has 
a  dup. :  xal  XP^°?  ['""^°  Dt.  15'  '•]  xal  dicaf-cTjciv.  aw  occurs  only  5'-  ", 
where  it  has  the  mng.  of  usury  or  interest.  "Usury  of  every  hand"  is 
improbable  unless  i"'  means  kind.  In  Dt.  15'  we  have  n>  njfo  'jya  Sd, 
"every  possessor  of  a  loan  of  his  hand,"  i.  e.,  "creditor."  The  law  re- 
quired not  merely  the  remission  of  interest  but  of  the  debt,  and  perhaps 
tivvi  is  everywhere  to  be  interpreted  as  the  equivalent  of  niyn,  so  here 
"loan  of  every  hand"  would  be  naturally  borrowed  from  Dt. — 33. 
uioyni]  (§^,  xal  ■Koi-T]m[isy,  a-zi]ao[>.ev^^. — 34.  pdnSd]  <S  'ipya,  but  maj?, 
v.",  SouXefavBAX,  Xaxpefavi-. — 35.  a^xpn  jaip-Sj;]  05  xepl  xX'^pou  ^oXo- 
(popfa?. — mina]  (gs  |v  Pt^Xfq). — pip]  13"  elsw.  always  jaii^  The  point- 
ing here  must  be  an  error.  Two  words  are  not  required  for  the  same 
thing.— 36.  ns  So].  So  is  lacking  in  C^ban,  as  MT.  in  v.  ".— nin^]  lack- 
ing in  05B><. — 38.  UTiDny]  <S  afxwv  -fjpLoJv  always  =  TJi  in  Ne. — ij^nnnni] 
lacking  in  (Sban^  dJTCapza?  ^[im^. — 39.  Point  lir^?]  BDB.  or  after  v.» 
liyya. — •\iiwn]  (gB  ^oy  egoQ, 


INDEXES. 


INDEXES. 


I.    ENGLISH. 


ACHMETHA,  141. 

Adar,  149. 
Ahava,  320. 
Amen,  244. 
Answer,  340. 
Aramaic  sources,  18^. 
Artaxerxes  I,4ijf. 
Artaxerxes  II,  A7  ff. 
Ashdodite,  299/. 
Asnappar,  166,  172. 
Assembly,  353/. 
Associates,  165. 

Barzillai,  93. 

Benjamin,  65. 
Beth-hakkarem,  214. 
Bondage,  371. 
Booths,  109/.,  359/. 
Brethren,  276. 

Casiphia,  321. 
Cup-bearer,  190. 
Cymbals,  121. 
Cyrus,  33/.,  56/- 

Darius  I,  37/. 
Daughters,  213/. 
David,  277. 
Dibon,  273. 
Divorce,  351/. 

Edict  of  Artaxerxes,  307  ff. 

■ of  Cyrus,  60/. 

Elephantine  papyri,  26. 
Eliashib,  208. 
Elul,  259. 
En-rimmon,  273. 
Ezra's  mission,  48. 
Ezra's  prayer,  336. 

Fasting,  341. 
Fields,  273. 
Foreigners,  363  /. 


Gates  of  Jerusalem,  207. 
Glorify,  317. 

Hair,  300. 
Hakkos,  93. 
Hallohesh,  213. 
Harumaph,  212. 
Hazor,  274. 
Hebrew,  300. 
Howorth,  9. 

Impalement,  147. 

Jerusalem,  184/. 
Jeshua,  107. 
Josephus,  10/.,  39. 

KOSTERS,  33/.,  163/. 

Levites,  83/.,  292. 

as  singers,  121. 

as  workmen,  216/. 

Lost  part  of  Ezra,  103  Jff. 

Maasai,  270. 
Manna,  367. 
Mattaniah,  271. 
Memoirs  of  Ezra,  15^. 

of  Nehemiah,  14/. 

Memorial,  204/. 


Name,  366. 

Nehemiah's  Davidic  descent,    186, 

192. 
Nehemiah's  prayer,  188/. 
Nethinim,  86  Jf.,  89,  322. 
Netophah,  280. 
Noadiah,  258. 
Nobles,  295. 


383 


384 

Officer  of  lawlessness,  337. 
Ono,  250. 

People  of  the  land,  157. 
Plagues,  366. 
Plain,  218. 
Plaza,  343  /. 
Porters,  85/.,  271. 
Prayer,  332. 

Return  from  exile,  33  /. 

Sabbath,  294/.,  376. 
Salt  of  the  palace,  174. 
Sanballat,  26,  198. 
Scribe,  304. 
Second  portion,  212/. 
Seraiah,  269. 

Servants  of  Solomon,  90  /. 
Shemaiah,  255. 
Sheshbazzar,  67,  69  _^. 
Show-bread,  377. 
Singers,  84/.,  98,  272. 
Solomon,  301. 
Susa,  182. 


INDEX 


Tattenai,  131,  133. 
Temple  tax,  377. 
Tithe,  292/. 
Tobiah,  198. 
Trees,  361. 
Trumpet,  121. 
Trvunpets,  feast  of,  357. 
Tunic,  100. 
Tyrians,  295. 

Urim  and  Thummim,  94/.,  97. 
Usury,  241. 

Vessels,  312. 

Wall,  334. 
Wine-press,  294,  298. 
Wisdom,  313. 

Xerxes,  42. 

Yekabseel,  273. 

Zabdiel,  270. 
Zerubbabel,  112. 


n.    HEBREW  AND  ARAMAIC. 


iSanjN,  69. 

>S3,  66. 

^T^V,  346/. 

IN,  348. 

imJ3,  170. 

2^V,  289,  337. 

njcN,  374. 

iSdo,  189. 

NJIli'N,  134. 

3n3,  95 /. 

3N1D  nno,  80. 

Ninx,  141. 

iSnJ,  302. 

caS,  124. 

Mx,  299. 

iVnn,  196/. 

hryp,  97. 
pip,  380. 

Dijcom,  100. 

aiiiSnc,  69. 

'73''n,  119. 

nosSn,  100,  118, 

234- 

niciyn,  298. 

1^12,  247  /. 

ni3Nn  ^rxi,  68 

lapn,  319. 

01JD,  100. 

pc"!,  119. 

h^y:^a,  221. 

t:'i3i,  64. 

D''3Xn,  119. 

nx-iDC,  184. 

n,  195- 

ixn,  248. 

XK'D,  380. 

Dinn,  374. 

yhi:,  148. 

Sjty,  196. 

nmni,  300. 

wnty,  316. 

M>h\  299. 

PD,  337- 

3tt'\  342. 

riNjD,  81. 

NPB'-in,  97. 

Hie  International  Critical  Commentary 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

GENESIS.  The  Rev.  John  Skinner,  D.D.,  Principal  and  Professor  of 
Old  Testament  Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Presbyterian  Chur«h 
of  England,  Cambridge,  England.  [Now  Ready. 

CXODUS.  The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  KENNEDY,  D.D,,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
University  of  Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS.    J.  F.  Stenning,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford. 

NUM  BERS.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  \_Now  Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Oxford,  \N(rw  Ready. 

JOSHUA.  The  Rev.  George  Adam  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Principal  of  flie 
University  of  Aberdeen. 

JUDGES.  The  Rev.  George  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theol- 
ogy, Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  \Now  Ready, 

SAMUEL.  The  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa.  \Now  Ready. 

KINGS.  The  Rev,  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  LL.D.,  President 
and  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York  City. 

CHRONICLES.  The  Rev.  Edward  L,  Curtis,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  [Now  Ready. 

EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  The  Rev.  L.  W.  Batten,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Pro- 
fessor  of  Old  Testament  Literature,  General  Theolcgical  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  [Now  Ready. 

PSALMS.  The  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime  Graduate 
Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  [2  vols.     Now  Ready. 

PROVERBS.  The  Rer.  C.  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew. 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [A^ow  Ready. 

JOB.  Tke  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  He- 
brew.  Oxford. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ISAIAH.  Chaps.  I-XXVII.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

ISAIAH .  Chaps.  XXVIII-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D. 
Chaps.  LX-LXVI.  The  Rev.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Dean  of  the  Theo- 
logical Faculty  of  the  Victoria  University  and  Professor  of  Biblical  Exegesis 
in  the  University  of  Manchester,  England. 

.  JEREMIAH.    The  Rev.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Ely,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Cambridge,  England. 

EZEKIEL.  The  Rev.  G.  A.  Cooke,  M.A.,  Oriel  Professor  of  the  Interpre- 
tation of  Holy  Scripture,  University  of  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  Charles  F. 
BuRNEY,  D.Litt.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Hebrew,  St.  John's  College, 
Oxford. 

DANIEL.  The  Rev.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D..  D.D.,  sometime  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St.  Michael's 
Church,  New  York  City. 

AMOS  AND  HOSEA.  W.  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  LL.D,,  sometime  President 
of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  [Now  Ready. 

MICAH,  ZEPHANIAH,   NAHUM,    HAgAKKUK,    OBADIAH   AND  JOEL. 

Prof.  John  M.  P.  Smith,  University  of  Chicago;  W.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Editor  of  The  Independent,  New  York;  Prof.  Julius  A.  Bewer, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  [Now  Ready. 

HAGGAI,  ZECHARIAH,  MALACHI  AND  JONAH.  Prof .  H.  G.  MiTCHELL, 
D.D.;  Prof.  John  M.  P.  Smith,  Ph.D.,  and  Prof.  J,  A.  Bewer,  Ph.D. 

[Now  Ready. 

ESTHER.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Paton,  Ph.D..  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hart- 
ford  Theological  Seminary.  [Now  Ready. 

ECCLESIASTES.  Prof.  George  A.  Barton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Bibli- 
cal Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa.  \^Now  Ready 

RUTH.  SONG  OF  SONGS  AND  LAMENTATIONS.  Rev. Charles A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime  Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Ency- 
clopaedia and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

ST.  MATTHEW.    The  Rev.  Willoughby  C.  Allen.  M.A.,  Fellow  and 
Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  College,  Oxford.       [Now  Ready. 

ST.    MARK.    Rev.  E.  P.  Gould,  D.D.,  sometime  ProfesBor  of  New  Testa- 
ment Literature,   P.  E.  Divinity  School.   Philadelphia.  [I^ow  Ready. 

ST.  LUKE.    The   Rev.    Alfred   Plummer,   D.D.,   sometime  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  [^Nuw  Ready. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ST.  JOHN.  The  Right  Rev,  John  Henry  Bernard,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 
Ossory,  Ireland. 

HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  The  Rev.  WiLLlAM  Sanday,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  Wil- 
LOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity  and  Hebrew, 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

ACTS.  The  Rev.  C.  H,  Turner,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  H.  N.  Bate,  M.A.,  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  London. 

ROMANS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

[Now  Ready. 

I.  CORINTHIANS.  The  Right  Rev.  Arch  Robertson,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  Rev.  Alfred  Plumuer,  D.D.,  late  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  [Now  Ready. 

II.  CORINTHIANS.  The  Rev.  Dawson  Walker,  D.D.,  Theological  Tutor 
in  the  University  of  Durham. 

GALATIANS.  The  Rev.  Ernest  D.  Burton,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS.  The  Rev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  B.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
now  Librarian  of  the  same.  ^ow  Ready, 

PHILIPPIANS  AND  PHILEMON.  The  Rev.  Marvin  R  Vincent, 
D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  {Now  Ready. 

THESSALONIANS.  The  Rev.  James  E.  Frame,  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 

[Now  Ready. 
THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  Walter  Lock,  D.D.,  Warden 
of  Keble  College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

HEBREWS.  The  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  D.D.,  Minister  United  Free 
Church,  Broughty  Ferry,  Scotland. 

ST.  JAMES.  The  Rev.  James  H.  Ropes,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

PETER  AND  JUDE.  The  Rev.  Charles  Bigg,  D.D.,  sometime  Regius 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

[A'cno  Ready. 

THE  JOHANNINE  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  E.  A.  Brooke,  B.D.,  Fellow 
and  Divinity  Lecturer  in  King's  College,  Cambridge.  [Now  Ready. 

REVELATION.  The  Rev.  Robert  H.  Charles,  M.A.,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin. 


The  International 

Theological  Library 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP/EDIA.  By  CharleS  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT. By  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  [Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  By  the  Rev.  John 
Skinner,  D.D.,  Principal  and  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Language  and  Lit- 
erature, College  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England,  Cambridge,  England, 
and  the  Rev.  Owen  Whitehouse,  B.A.,  Principal  and  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Chestnut  College,  Cambridge,  England. 

OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.  By  Henry  Preserved  Smith,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature,  Meadville,  Pa.  [Now  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY      HISTORY      OF     THE     OLD     TESTAMENT.       By 

Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt.,  President  and  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  A.  B.  DAVIDSON,  D.D., 
LL.D.;  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

[Now  Ready. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT.  By  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  B.D.,  Minister  United  Free  Church, 
Broughty  Ferry,  Scotland.  [Now  Ready. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  CASPAR  Rene 
Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the 
University  of  Leipzig.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  By  WiLLiAM  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 


The   International  Theological   Library 


A    HISTORY    OF    CHRISTIANITY     IN    THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE.     By 

Arthur  C.  McGiffert,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Church  History,  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  New  York.  [Now  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY     OF     THE      NEW     TESTAMENT.       By 

Frank  C.  Porter,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  George  B.  Stevens, 
D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University,  New 
Haven,  Conn.  [Now  Ready. 

BIBLICAL  ARCH/EOLOGY.  By  G.  BUCHANAN  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

THE  ANCIENT  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  By  Robert  Rainey,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Principal  of  New  College,  Edinburgh.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  LATIN  CHURCH  FROM  GREGORY  THE  GREAT  TO  THE 
COUNCIL  OF  TRENT.  [Author  to  be  announced  later. 

THE  GREEK  AND  EASTERN  CHURCHES.  By  W.  F.  Adeney,  D.D., 
Principal  of  Independent  College,  Manchester.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  REFORMATION.  By  T.  M.  LiNDSAY,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  United 
Free  College,  Glasgow.  [2  vols.     Now  Ready. 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  LATIN  COUNTRIES  SINCE  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
TRENT.     By  Paul  Sabatier,  D.Litt.,  Drome,  France. 

SYMBOLICS.  By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime  Pro- 
fessor of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.  By  G.  P.  FiSHER,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn.  [Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CHRISTIAN  INSTITUTIONS.  By  A.  V.  G.  Allen,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Protestant  Episcopal  Divinity  School, 
Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  By  George  Gallaway,  D.D.,  Minister 
of  United  Free  Church,  Castle  Douglas,  Scotland. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  RELIGIONS.  By  George  F.  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  in  Harvard  University.  [In  Press. 

APOLOGETICS.  By  A.  B.  Bruce,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

[Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD.  By  WiLLiAM  N.  Clarke,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Hamilton  Theological  Seminary. 

[Now  Ready. 


The   International  Theological   Library 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN.  By  WiLLiAM  P.  Pateeson,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Divinity,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  By  H.  R. 

Mackintosh,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION.  By  George  B.  STE- 
VENS, D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  By  WiLLIAM  Adams 
Brown,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  By  Newman  Smyth,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congrega- 
tional Church,  New  Haven.  [Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE    CHRISTIAN     PASTOR    AND    THE    WORKING     CHURCH.     By 

Washington  Gladden,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congregational  Church,  Columbus, 
Ohio.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  PREACHER.  By  A.  E.  Garvie,  D.D.,  Principal  of 
New  College,  London,  England. 


■«  (^ 


Princeton  Theological   Seminary   Libraries 


54   7603 


1012   01 


DATE  DUE 

tit.-— ^^' 

■s 

■mr-^"'^ 

m 

?/ 

m^ 

w^ 

*^'^'-   1  J 

Demco,  inc.  38-293 


